Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: Agenda for next RPM Working Group call this Wednesday
Thanks, Brian and J. Scott – just to clarify, the Trademark Claims Sub Team’s list of updated questions relate only to the Sub Team’s consideration of the original Charter questions that it was tasked to refine as appropriate. As such, the Sub Team’s table does not include the text for any of the “non-exact match” proposals that were sent to the Working Group; however, the Sub Team does note as part of its recommendation under Updated Question 4 (specifically 4(b)(i) on Page 10 of the Word version) that the “Graham/Shatan/Winterfeldt proposal” should be considered here. As these proposals had been combined previously into a single document for easier use by the Working Group, perhaps what staff can do for now is add a footnote/reference to this document in the Trademark Claims Sub Team table. We will also post that document, containing the Graham/Shatan/Winterfeldt proposal, on the page where we now have the Sub Team table as well, for completeness. If as a consequence of Brian’s suggestion and Working Group discussion, the sense of the group is that the Trademark Claims questions list should include an additional or more specific question referring to some aspects of the Graham/Shatan/Winterfeldt proposal, staff will of course update the table, along with any other agreed updates or further refinements (e.g. Brian’s other suggestion for rewording Question 4(a)). I hope this is helpful. Cheers Mary From: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans@adobe.com> Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 08:41 To: "Beckham, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda for next RPM Working Group call this Wednesday +1 Sent from my iPhone On Jun 21, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote: Thanks again Mary, Two quick things: 1) While I appreciate that there may be some process question about when/where this question fits, Michael Graham’s proposal (in the attached email dated 20-Apr) seems to be missing from the “Consolidated Table of Proposed Refinements to Charter Questions…” That proposal was: “The Trademark Claims Service and TMCH registration program should be expanded to apply to all Legacy TLDs as well as New gTLDs.” Again, even if it is necessary for some process reason to discuss this at another moment, it may be worth recording this proposal in the above‑mentioned document. 2) Question 4.a. states: “What is the evidence of harm under the existing system?” This should probably be rephrased, e.g., as: “Is there evidence of harm under the existing system? If so, what evidence is there, and what types of harm are observed?” Thanks. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:23 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda for next RPM Working Group call this Wednesday Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for this Wednesday at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect or phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Receive and discuss final reports from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams 3. Confirm opening and closing dates for Open TMCH Questions poll 4. Discuss co-chairs’ proposed agenda for, and intended outcomes of, 3-hour WG session at ICANN59 5. Next steps For Agenda Item #2, the Sub Teams will be circulating their reports before the call, hopefully on Tuesday (tomorrow). For Agenda Item #3, we hope to be able to publish the poll by the time of the Working Group call, if not before. For Agenda Item #4, please see the following suggested agenda (with the chronological order TBD): 1. Further discussion of reports and suggestions from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams (up to one hour each) 2. Panel discussion with registry and registrar representatives (up to one hour): · For this session, the co-chairs will be sending an invitation letter to the Chairs of the Registries and Registrars Stakeholder Groups this week, inviting them to send representatives to engage in discussion with our Working Group. Working Group members who are also RySG or RrSG members will be cc’d on the correspondence, as it seems likely they will be involved in their SG discussions. · The scope of the proposed panel discussion is likely to focus on the data collection suggestions that the two Sub Teams (for Sunrise and Trademark Claims) will be proposing (and which the Working Group will have the opportunity to review and discuss this week). Thanks and cheers Mary <mime-attachment> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1527819ce84b4dabc53108d4b8a22055%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636336453945931163&sdata=N27ophCHOSeEbIFX6BIMZy4Dty8Dpim8wPu24eTeD1c%3D&reserved=0[na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann.org-252Fmailman-252Flistinfo-252Fgnso-2Drpm-2Dwg-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C1527819ce84b4dabc53108d4b8a22055-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636336453945931163-26sdata-3DN27ophCHOSeEbIFX6BIMZy4Dty8Dpim8wPu24eTeD1c-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2hM9smVxMe0xpK_5m9vnOfzOZkxsf5g6fVoIy24Rp6M&s=X73KROdkXzPKtgD_RsQUQzaAOHhsy7PAr9g-Rzy8xXg&e=>
Thanks Mary, As this question/proposal does seem to fit within the spirit of Charter Question No. 2, it seems reasonable to include it, somehow. Certainly it would be good to get others’ feedback on this list or on our call; note in this regard that the WG Charter frames the List of Potential Issues for Consideration in this PDP as follows (emphasis added): “The issues that are listed here reflect the suggestions that have been made to date by the community regarding improvements or modifications to the RPM(s) in question and should form part of the discussions of the PDP Working Group. The Working Group may decide to address all, some or even additional issues to these.” In other words, it is not immediately clear on what basis this question/proposal would be excluded from the WG discussions. Best, and look forward to speaking to you all soon. Brian From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 2:51 PM To: J. Scott Evans; Beckham, Brian Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda for next RPM Working Group call this Wednesday Thanks, Brian and J. Scott – just to clarify, the Trademark Claims Sub Team’s list of updated questions relate only to the Sub Team’s consideration of the original Charter questions that it was tasked to refine as appropriate. As such, the Sub Team’s table does not include the text for any of the “non-exact match” proposals that were sent to the Working Group; however, the Sub Team does note as part of its recommendation under Updated Question 4 (specifically 4(b)(i) on Page 10 of the Word version) that the “Graham/Shatan/Winterfeldt proposal” should be considered here. As these proposals had been combined previously into a single document for easier use by the Working Group, perhaps what staff can do for now is add a footnote/reference to this document in the Trademark Claims Sub Team table. We will also post that document, containing the Graham/Shatan/Winterfeldt proposal, on the page where we now have the Sub Team table as well, for completeness. If as a consequence of Brian’s suggestion and Working Group discussion, the sense of the group is that the Trademark Claims questions list should include an additional or more specific question referring to some aspects of the Graham/Shatan/Winterfeldt proposal, staff will of course update the table, along with any other agreed updates or further refinements (e.g. Brian’s other suggestion for rewording Question 4(a)). I hope this is helpful. Cheers Mary From: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 08:41 To: "Beckham, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda for next RPM Working Group call this Wednesday +1 Sent from my iPhone On Jun 21, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote: Thanks again Mary, Two quick things: 1) While I appreciate that there may be some process question about when/where this question fits, Michael Graham’s proposal (in the attached email dated 20-Apr) seems to be missing from the “Consolidated Table of Proposed Refinements to Charter Questions…” That proposal was: “The Trademark Claims Service and TMCH registration program should be expanded to apply to all Legacy TLDs as well as New gTLDs.” Again, even if it is necessary for some process reason to discuss this at another moment, it may be worth recording this proposal in the above‑mentioned document. 2) Question 4.a. states: “What is the evidence of harm under the existing system?” This should probably be rephrased, e.g., as: “Is there evidence of harm under the existing system? If so, what evidence is there, and what types of harm are observed?” Thanks. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:23 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda for next RPM Working Group call this Wednesday Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for this Wednesday at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect or phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Receive and discuss final reports from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams 3. Confirm opening and closing dates for Open TMCH Questions poll 4. Discuss co-chairs’ proposed agenda for, and intended outcomes of, 3-hour WG session at ICANN59 5. Next steps For Agenda Item #2, the Sub Teams will be circulating their reports before the call, hopefully on Tuesday (tomorrow). For Agenda Item #3, we hope to be able to publish the poll by the time of the Working Group call, if not before. For Agenda Item #4, please see the following suggested agenda (with the chronological order TBD): 1. Further discussion of reports and suggestions from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams (up to one hour each) 2. Panel discussion with registry and registrar representatives (up to one hour): • For this session, the co-chairs will be sending an invitation letter to the Chairs of the Registries and Registrars Stakeholder Groups this week, inviting them to send representatives to engage in discussion with our Working Group. Working Group members who are also RySG or RrSG members will be cc’d on the correspondence, as it seems likely they will be involved in their SG discussions. • The scope of the proposed panel discussion is likely to focus on the data collection suggestions that the two Sub Teams (for Sunrise and Trademark Claims) will be proposing (and which the Working Group will have the opportunity to review and discuss this week). Thanks and cheers Mary <mime-attachment> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1527819ce84b4dabc53108d4b8a22055%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636336453945931163&sdata=N27ophCHOSeEbIFX6BIMZy4Dty8Dpim8wPu24eTeD1c%3D&reserved=0[na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann.org-252Fmailman-252Flistinfo-252Fgnso-2Drpm-2Dwg-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C1527819ce84b4dabc53108d4b8a22055-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636336453945931163-26sdata-3DN27ophCHOSeEbIFX6BIMZy4Dty8Dpim8wPu24eTeD1c-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2hM9smVxMe0xpK_5m9vnOfzOZkxsf5g6fVoIy24Rp6M&s=X73KROdkXzPKtgD_RsQUQzaAOHhsy7PAr9g-Rzy8xXg&e=>
participants (2)
-
Beckham, Brian -
Mary Wong