Reminder: Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 29 Oct by 16:00 UTC
Dear WG Members, This is a reminder that following yesterday’s call, staff have completed the action items by updating several google docs. If you have any further comment/input, please provide on list by 16:00 UTC on Thursday, 29 October. Please see details below. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel == Phase 1 Final PDP Recommendations (pp.28-29): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG1... Staff revised the contextual language of the TMCH Final Recommendation #1 based on input received during the call yesterday. The specific edits are as follows: * Last paragraph on p.28: Revised the three points after “During its deliberation, the Working Group coalesced around the following ideas” as follows: “(1) mandatory RPMs should only be for trademarks, not marks or other source identifiers that do not function as trademarks, including Geographical Indications; (2) while such other designations can be entered into an additional/ancillary database maintained by the TMCH Validation Provider, they are not eligible for Sunrise and Claims; and (3) the ability for the TMCH Validation Provider and Registry Operators to offer additional/voluntary ancillary services to such other designations should be preserved (e.g., via an ancillary database). * First paragraph on p.29: Revise the first sentence as follows: “The Working Group ultimately agreed that the policy principles contained in the recommendation text reflect those ideas, and frame the suggested amendments to the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) text in the Implementation Guidance.” Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9ejSGrS1YslCY9ZTOHvbxBc3pIdiUL... Staff made minor edits to the content based on input received during the call yesterday. The updated content is as follows: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and potential approval. If approved by the GNSO Council, the Final Report will then be forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for its consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” Executive Summary (p.3): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIRVhW27Xwz_BA1v-5ksHyifWUtiTfZ... Revise the content under “conclusions and next steps” similar to that under “next steps”: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and, if approved, forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” Background (pp.11-12, 19): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP9... Kathy Kleiman worked with staff and agreed on the further edits related to the WG’s deliberation on EPDP recommendations. The specific edits are as follows: * Last bullet on p.11: Removed “…and provided no objection to incorporating the staff-proposed approach in finalizing relevant recommendations relating to the URS and their contextual language” * Second paragraph on p.19: Removed “…and provided no objection to incorporating the staff-proposed approach in finalizing relevant recommendations relating to the URS” * Second paragraph on p.19: Added the following sentences “When finalizing its Phase 1 recommendations, the Working Group confirmed that its final recommendations are consistent with the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations as well as the analysis in the Wave 1 Report. Specifically, the Working Group provided further notes regarding the consistency in the contextual language of the URS Final Recommendations #1, #2, #4, #5, #11.”
Hi all, I would suggest the further refinements below. “(1) mandatory RPMs should only be for trademarks, not marks or other source identifiers designations that do not function as trademarks, including Geographical Indications; (2) while such other designations can be entered into an additional/ancillary database maintained by the TMCH Validation Provider, they are not eligible for Sunrise and Claims; and (3) the ability for the TMCH Validation Provider and Registry Operators to offer additional/voluntary ancillary services to such other designations should be preserved (e.g., via an ancillary database). Otherwise, the updated text below looked fine to me. Best, Griffin ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 Washington, DC 20006<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> griffin@winterfeldt.law<mailto:griffin@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 759 5836 From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 11:23 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Reminder: Updated Final Report Sections - Input by 29 Oct by 16:00 UTC Dear WG Members, This is a reminder that following yesterday’s call, staff have completed the action items by updating several google docs. If you have any further comment/input, please provide on list by 16:00 UTC on Thursday, 29 October. Please see details below. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel == Phase 1 Final PDP Recommendations (pp.28-29): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG1Gac/edit#<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG1Gac/edit> Staff revised the contextual language of the TMCH Final Recommendation #1 based on input received during the call yesterday. The specific edits are as follows: * Last paragraph on p.28: Revised the three points after “During its deliberation, the Working Group coalesced around the following ideas” as follows: “(1) mandatory RPMs should only be for trademarks, not marks or other source identifiers that do not function as trademarks, including Geographical Indications; (2) while such other designations can be entered into an additional/ancillary database maintained by the TMCH Validation Provider, they are not eligible for Sunrise and Claims; and (3) the ability for the TMCH Validation Provider and Registry Operators to offer additional/voluntary ancillary services to such other designations should be preserved (e.g., via an ancillary database). * First paragraph on p.29: Revise the first sentence as follows: “The Working Group ultimately agreed that the policy principles contained in the recommendation text reflect those ideas, and frame the suggested amendments to the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) text in the Implementation Guidance.” Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaCI2EkvIS9ejSGrS1YslCY9ZTOHvbxBc3pIdiUL... Staff made minor edits to the content based on input received during the call yesterday. The updated content is as follows: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and potential approval. If approved by the GNSO Council, the Final Report will then be forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for its consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” Executive Summary (p.3): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R99_8v0BYmIRVhW27Xwz_BA1v-5ksHyifWUtiTfZ... Revise the content under “conclusions and next steps” similar to that under “next steps”: “This Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and, if approved, forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for consideration and potential action in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.” Background (pp.11-12, 19): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jw_B6xGwc-Du9dMbCGjsQnsq40NbZWgT5aC86nP9... Kathy Kleiman worked with staff and agreed on the further edits related to the WG’s deliberation on EPDP recommendations. The specific edits are as follows: * Last bullet on p.11: Removed “…and provided no objection to incorporating the staff-proposed approach in finalizing relevant recommendations relating to the URS and their contextual language” * Second paragraph on p.19: Removed “…and provided no objection to incorporating the staff-proposed approach in finalizing relevant recommendations relating to the URS” * Second paragraph on p.19: Added the following sentences “When finalizing its Phase 1 recommendations, the Working Group confirmed that its final recommendations are consistent with the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations as well as the analysis in the Wave 1 Report. Specifically, the Working Group provided further notes regarding the consistency in the contextual language of the URS Final Recommendations #1, #2, #4, #5, #11.”
participants (2)
-
Ariel Liang -
Griffin Barnett