Dear all, In addition to the Action Items circulated by Amr, you may wish to review the draft updated Work Plan for the remainder of Phase One of our PDP work. This has been updated slightly following the meeting on Wednesday, when a suggestion was made that we try to alternate Sub Team meetings with full Working Group calls, to alleviate the burden on those Working Group members participating in the Sub Teams and in consideration of the fact that we are – for the present, up to ICANN59 – moving to mostly 90-minute (and occasional 120-minute) calls. A few Working Group members noted during the Wednesday call that, while we need to make progress on our work and this can be facilitated by having longer calls, the decision to move to 90 or 120 minute calls should be made in consultation with the full Working Group. As such, please reply to the mailing list if, after reviewing the draft updated Work Plan, you have any objections to moving to longer calls from now up to ICANN59. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> Date: Friday, March 31, 2017 at 11:47 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] IMPORTANT - Action Items and Notes, Review of all RPMs for all gTLDs Working Group Call - 29 March 2017 Hi, Below, you will find the action items and notes for the Review of all RPMs for all gTLDs working group call held on 29 March 2017. Also, attached is a document with an updated TMCH Next Steps Table, incorporating the below action items and notes in it. Also, please note that as per action items 12.a and 13 below, a call for volunteers to join the 3 subgroups on sunrise registrations, trademark claims and additional voluntary protection mechanisms will be circulated shortly, as well as a doodle poll to determine whether the monthly UTC 03:00 call should remain on Wednesdays or be shifted to Thursdays. Please keep an eye out for both emails. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Q7 (Design Marks) – WG to formulate question requesting Deloitte to provide aggregated, anonymized data about trademark owners submitting one mark, five marks, higher numbers, and frequency 2. WG will return to substantive discussion on Q7 (Design Marks) and Q8 (Geographic Indications) together when further information is shared by Deloitte on Q7 3. Q9 (TM+50) - Proceed as suggested by WG leadership team - Close this question unless something new is raised 4. Q10 (Matching Rules) - Defer discussion on this question until The Analysis Group has had an opportunity to present its findings on this question to the WG 5. Q11 (Categories of Goods and Services) - Consider this question along with each of the RPMs associated with the TMCH when the WG has them on its agenda 6. Q12 (Operational Considerations) - Defer decision on costs to the implementation phase following the policy development phase, but communicate to the implementation team that the working group did consider whether competition would lower costs, whether the single provider model is the most efficient and effective for stakeholders, and that apart from costs, feedback on the quality of Deloitte’s service from an operational perspective to-date has been positive 7. Q13 (Costs and Benefits) - Proceed with WG leadership team suggestion - table question until the end of the RPMs discussion 8. Q14 (Accessibility) - Close question, as per data currently on-hand 9. Q15 (Transparency/Confidentiality) – Request information from Deloitte on whether there are any legally or contractually binding provisions on Deloitte in relation to transparency/confidentiality of the TMCH? 10. Q16 (Balance of Scope) - Proceed as suggested by WG leadership - table question until the end of the RPMs discussion 11. Categories 1 and 2 – Refer to the TMCH Next Steps Table (in the document attached to this email), and provide thoughts/comments/questions on-list on how to proceed with these questions, taking into consideration the staff notes. 12. Create 3 Subgroups (sunrise, claims and private services): a. On-list call for volunteers/chairs for each of the 3 sub-teams b. Working Group leadership and staff will work on a template to assist in scoping the mandate of each of the subgroups – circulate drafts to the full WG for discussion c. Rotating purpose of calls, so that calls on one week provide opportunity for subgroups to report to the full working group, followed by a call the following week for the WG at-large to discuss progress 13. Set up poll to be circulated to WG email list before end of week on duration and changes in times/days of 4th rotational meeting time of 0300 UTC. Notes: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Follow up from ICANN58 discussions: 1) Discuss co-chairs’ proposals regarding completion of TMCH Charter questions: i. Q7 (Design Marks) – further discussion after Deloitte sends further response ii. Q8 (Geographic Indications) – GI entries in TMCH are included when/if they are marks protected by statutes/treaties, regardless of whether or not they are registered trademarks a) Consider whether or not trademarks protected by statute/treaty should remain in the TMCH, if they are not registered trademarks b) Design marks and trademarks protected by statute/treaty should be considered separately c) Clarity on why marks protected by statute/treaty (how are those defined) are being included in the TMCH, despite recommendations from the GNSO and ICANN Board regarding limiting inclusion to registered trademarks d) ACTION ITEM: WG will return to substantive discussion on Q7 and Q8 together when further information is shared by Deloitte on Q7 iii. Q9 (TM+50) – ACTION ITEM: Proceed as suggested by WG leadership team – Close this question unless something new is raised a) No substantive remarks on why TM+50 should be limited or expanded b) No indication that TM+50 is being abused iv. Q10 (Matching Rules) – Defer discussion on this question until The Analysis Group has had an opportunity to present its findings on this question to the WG v. Q11 (Categories of Goods and Services) – This question, despite having been subject to discussion, will require further consideration in light of letter from EFF and co-signatories a) ACTION ITEM: Consider this question along with each of the RPMs associated with the TMCH when the WG has them on its agenda vi. Q12 (Operational Considerations) – Suggestion to defer decision on costs to the implementation phase a) Of relevance may be that parties other than Deloitte have had interest in the past to conduct validation portion of the TMCH function b) ACTION ITEM: WG to note to implementation team that the question of cost was considered, and that competition might lower costs, and whether the single provider model is necessarily the most efficient and effective for stakeholders c) Delays due to multiple contractors may affect timeline (delays) for a second round of new gTLD applications – consideration of this is required d) Not necessarily true that second round be postponed while all policy/implementation efforts on RPMs are concluded vii. Q13 (Costs and Benefits) – Proceed with WG leadership team suggestion – table question until the end of RPMs discussion viii. Q14 (Accessibility) – Close question, as per data currently on-hand ix. Q15 (Transparency/Confidentiality) – Still an open question (currently no WG consensus) a) Information in the TMCH is a subset of publicly available information accessible elsewhere b) If costs of TMCH entries are lowered, possible to include all trademarks as opposed to subset – could solve problems regarding TMCH transparency c) Discussions held by the Implementation Assistance Group (IAG) did not adequately consider transparency of TMCH d) Registry representatives were advocates for TMCH transparency, but convinced otherwise (refer to STI and IAG for reasons cited at the time, as well as other resources) e) (Suggestion from the AC Chat) Jon Nevett: what about releasing a simple list of dictionary terms in the TMCH? Not opening up the entire database with all the records. f) Continue discussion on this question on-list and on future calls x. Q16 (Balance of Scope) – ACTION ITEM: Proceed as suggested by WG leadership - table question until the end of the RPMs discussion xi. ACTION ITEM: Categories 1 and 2 – Refer to the TMCH Next Steps table (in the document attached to this email), and provide thoughts/comments/questions on-list on how to proceed with these questions, taking into consideration the staff notes. a) ACTION ITEM: Call for requests for additional follow up on Deloitte’s data as presented at ICANN58 and on any other matters arising from ICANN58: a. Can we get from Deloitte aggregated, anonymized data about trademark owners submitting one mark, five marks, higher numbers, and frequency b. Regarding Q15 (Transparency/Confidentiality) is there anything legally or contractually binding on Deloitte in relation to transparency/confidentiality of the TMCH? 3. Agree on duration (call times) for meetings in April and May 2017: 1) No objection to continuing weekly calls on a 90-minute basis, noting that some may be 120 minutes as needed 4. Review proposed updated Work Plan and formation of Sub Teams for Sunrise and Claims Charter questions refinement: 1) Questions raised in charter and during meetings on private protections for trademarks (private voluntary protection mechanisms) 2) Create 3 subgroups: i. Sunrise ii. Claims iii. Private Services (Concern raised on whether or not private services are within scope of this PDP) iv. ACTION ITEMS: a) On-list call for volunteers/chairs for each of the 3 sub-teams b) Working Group leadership and staff will work on a template to assist in scoping the mandate of each of the subgroups – circulate drafts to the full WG for discussion 5. Confirm the appropriate day of the week for 4th rotational meeting time of 0300 UTC: 1) Suggestion to move this call to Thursday, so that these calls don't take place on Tuesday nights for those in North and South America 2) ACTION ITEM: Set up poll to be circulated to WG email list before end of week on duration and changes in times/days of calls.