The Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Trademark Claims Data Review is scheduled on Wednesday, 24 April 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. 

10:00 PDT, 13:00 EDT, 19:00 Paris CEST, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Thursday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Thursday) 03:00 Melbourne AEST

For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y65ycpp7

PROPOSED AGENDA

  1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs)
  2. Development of Preliminary Recommendations and review of individual proposals:
    1. Draft answers/recommendations for Q1
    2. Review Proposals #5 & #6
  3. AOB

 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Resources: 

Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) contains draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals in relation to the Agreed Charter Questions:

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515784000&api=v2

  • Question 1: pp.3-6

Relevant to the Agreed TM Claims Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed TM Claims Charter Question being reviewed by the Sub Team:

RECORDINGS

Mp3

Zoom recording

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

PARTICIPATION

Attendance & Zoom chat

Apologies: 

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

  1. Staff will ask Sub Team members whether there are any objections to moving next week’s call to 02 May at 17:00 UTC.
  2. Staff will start up discussion threads based on the call and in coordination with the Sub Team Co-Chairs.
  3. Staff will update the summary table based on the transcript/recording from the meeting.
  4. Sub Team members will review the homework assignments in preparation for the next meeting.

Brief Notes:

Question 1:

Answer to Question to 1(a):

-- Change to “appears to be having its intended effect.”?

-- Keep as “possibly having unintended consequences”

-- Insufficient data to know the extent of the effect, had to look for unintended consequences.  Support for “appears to be having its intended effect”.

Preliminary Recommendation:

-- Re: reference to Q3 -- doesn’t go to the question of intended or unintended effect.  Even have the answer be more detailed in Q3 or add to the recommendation in Q1.

-- Other sub team members appear to support the language in the Q3 preliminary recommendation.

-- Could add an introductory sentence in Q3 that links back to Q1 that the aim of the revision of the Claims Notice would be to increase the deterrence effect and the useful information for potential registrants and their intended use of the domain.  

-- Also include the explanation in Q1.

Proposal #5:

-- We do know why people abandon checkouts.

-- Seems to be fixing a hypothetical problem.

-- Seems general agreement

  • No labels