REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 02 October at 17:00-18:30 UTC
Dear RPM WG members, This is a reminder. Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 02 October at 17:00-18:30 UTC. As a reminder, please also see the following action items from the meeting on 25 September: * Question 7: Proponents (Kleiman/Muscovitch and Greg Shatan) have until 19:00 UTC on Tuesday, 01 October to provide any revisions to their proposals. * Question 8: Rebecca Tushnet, Claudio diGangi, Jason Schaeffer, Susan Payne (and any WG member interested in joining the small group) provide a final revised proposal by Tuesday, 01 October at 19:00 UTC. * Deferred Questions: WG members may proposal relating to any of the deferred questions by 19:00 UTC on Tuesday, 01 October for discussion on the call on 02 October. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Conclude discussion of proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions: * Revised Proposal(s) re: Charter Question 7 * Revised Proposal(s) re: Charter Question 8 3. Discussion of Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions): * TMCH Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features: Charter Questions 12 & 13 * TMCH Category 5: Access & Accessibility: Charter Question 15 * TMCH Category 6: Balance: Charter Question 16 * TMCH Category 1: Education: Charter Questions 1, 2, and 3 * TMCH Category 2: Verification & Updating of TMCH Database: Charter Questions 4, 5, and 6 4. Time permitting --Initiate discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so. 5. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel
Hi all, A little addition to the Questions: Category 1: Q2: Should the TMCH be responsible for educating rights-holders, domain name registrants and potential registrants about the services it provides? If so, how? If the TMCH is not to be responsible, who should be? The TMCH should be responsible for educating rights-holders, domain name registrants and potential registrants about the services it provides. First, the TMCH services are for the community, so for the TMCH to have a successful interaction with the community, the community needs to have a meaningful knowledge of the TMCH services. Second, the TMCH is the best place to explain its own services and correctly identify the stakeholders it interacts with. Third, the TMCH already provides some level of educational material and efforts toward trademark owners, and implementing these efforts to further develop education and outreach for current and potential registrants would serve the fuller community. Fourth, this proposal is aligned in the same direction as some of the new TM Claim notice recommendations, where the working group identified a clear interest in giving meaningful knowledge to all parties of the community when presented at a TMCH action for it fully serve it purpose.
What kind of outreach is envisioned here? I tend to agree that the effectiveness of the TMCH is greatly diminished by the fact that ordinary businesses have never heard of it, but I'm not sure what could be an effective outreach to those who haven't already heard of the TMCH. Jonathan On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:44 AM Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> wrote:
*Hi all,* A little addition to the Questions:
*Category 1: Q2: Should the TMCH be responsible for educating rights-holders, domain name registrants and potential registrants about the services it provides? If so, how? If the TMCH is not to be responsible, who should be? *
The TMCH should be responsible for educating rights-holders, domain name registrants and potential registrants about the services it provides. First, the TMCH services are for the community, so for the TMCH to have a successful interaction with the community, the community needs to have a meaningful knowledge of the TMCH services. Second, the TMCH is the best place to explain its own services and correctly identify the stakeholders it interacts with.
Third, the TMCH already provides some level of educational material and efforts toward trademark owners, and implementing these efforts to further develop education and outreach for current and potential registrants would serve the fuller community. Fourth, this proposal is aligned in the same direction as some of the new TM Claim notice recommendations, where the working group identified a clear interest in giving meaningful knowledge to all parties of the community when presented at a TMCH action for it fully serve it purpose. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (3)
-
Jonathan Frost -
Julie Hedlund -
Martin Pablo Silva Valent