The call for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 05 October 2016 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
10:00 PDT, 13:00 EDT, 18:00 London 19:00 CEST
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/gob9pq4
The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, scheduled for 5 October at 1700 UTC, is as follows:
- Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only); updates to SOI
- Continue review of Charter and community questions for TMCH, Sunrise and Claims – the aim being to finalize which questions the WG agrees to review, which need to be synthesized with others, and which are to be postponed or not considered
- Next steps / next meeting
For agenda item #2, we hope that the consolidated list of Charter and community questions that was compiled by staff, and reattached for your convenience, will be helpful. In addition, we refer you to the mailing list discussions that have been going on for further background: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/.
We are pleased also to report that both the FORUM and WIPO have very kindly submitted their feedback on the additional questions regarding the TM-PDDRP that we had sent to them last month. These will be posted to the Working Group wiki space along with the responses that were received to the Community Survey on the TM-PDDRP. Subject to the co-chairs’ decision, we expect that these will be taken up by the Working Group at its next meeting, on 19 October, in preparation for ICANN57 in Hyderabad.
Documents: Consolidated Categorized Charter Community Question List
Transcript
Apologies: Petter Rindforth, Heather Forrest
Audio only: none
Follow up notes:
Please find below the notes and actions arising from yesterday’s meeting of the RPMs Working Group. The meeting focused on continuing the review of the Charter questions and those questions which arose at ICANN56 in Helsinki.
TMCH
Question 5: To begin "Should" rather than "How should"; and possibly a "If so, how?" be added at the end
Question 10: Could be recast to also focus on small businesses/holders of limited numbers of mark holders. Consider that this may be a matter for the new gTLDs WG.
Additional questions:
Should the TMCH database be entirely public?
Is it practical to have more than one TMCH provider? [ADD TO HELSINKI Q4]
ACTION: Co-Chairs to discuss and propose mechanism for WG to work on clarifying the questions and where necessary expand into sub-components. Initial proposal for a sub-team led by J Scott Evans to lead this activity and Paul Tattersfield volunteered to participate.
