Please find the details below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call scheduled for Wednesday, 22 January 2020 at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/wackwaq
PROPOSED AGENDA
- Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest
- Begin Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT20obA/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
- AOB
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
RECORDINGS
PARTICIPATION
Notes/ Action Items
Actions:
Structure of the Initial Report:
ACTION ITEM: Change the order to put the Overview of Proposals (Non-Recommendations) after the Deliberations of the Working Group.
Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text:
ACTION ITEM: General -- 1) Leave the document open for comments in case of clarifications or error corrections; 2) David McCauley has noted that he has identified some typos in the Sunrise & Claims document. He will comment on them in the Google document.
ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #5: Staff will confirm whether there is any basis for using the term “in general” such as a reference to specific questions/exceptions.
ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Recommendations #1 and #2: Combine Recommendations #1 and #2, but without rewriting.
ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Recommendation #3: Second bullet: Change to "The Claims Notice should include a link to a web page on the ICANN Org website containing translations of the Claims Notice in all six UN languages".
ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Recommendation #5: Staff will check the full text to note whether there is a link between the use of “in general” and a specific example/question; in those cases we will retain the terminology, if not then staff will suggesting deleting “in general”.
ACTION ITEM: Trademark Claims Question #1: Add a footnote to define “manually hand-registered domains”.
Notes:
- Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.
2. Begin Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT20obA/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
a. Structure of the Initial Report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZPGl3lL_Gec22LkFY5E4Qw4S-q-yIcfzfUzR9nYVvg8/edit?usp=sharing
1 Executive Summary
2 Overview of Recommendations and Questions for Community Input
3 Overview of Proposals (Non-Recommendations)
3.1 TMCH Proposals
3.1 URS Proposals
4 Deliberations of the Working Group
4.1 Deliberations of TM-PDDRP
4.2 Deliberations of Additional Marketplace RPMs
4.3 Deliberations of Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sunrise
4.4 Deliberations of TMCH Structure and Scope
4.5 Deliberations of URS Dispute Resolution Procedure
5 Conclusion and Next Steps
6 Background
7 Approach Taken by the Working Group
8 Annex A - PDP Working Group Charter
9 Annex B - Charter Questions and Answers
10 Annex C - Working Group Documents
11 Annex D - Working Group Membership and Attendance
12 Annex E - Community Input
-- ACTION ITEM: Change the order to put the Overview of Proposals (Non-Recommendations) after the Deliberations of the Working Group.
b. Deliberations of the Working Group: Sunrise & Claims – Draft of Initial Report Text
Sunrise Recommendation #5:
– why do we have “in general”?
-- Implies incorrectly that there will be some exceptions. Carryover from “generally”.
ACTION ITEM: Put in brackets the suggestion to delete “in general”. Staff will confirm whether there is any basis for that language.
Trademark Claims Recommendations #1 and #2:
-- Should these recommendations be combined?
-- Rec #1 seems like a preamble to #2.
-- If we merge we shouldn’t rewrite.
ACTION ITEM: Combine Recommendations #1 and #2, but without rewriting.
Trademark Claims Recommendations #3:
-- Why do we include the text “where feasible”?
-- Perhaps we included it as a hedge against whether it is cost-prohibitive. But shouldn’t be an issue to get the link, even if the languages aren’t there.
-- Add “should” before “include”.
ACTION ITEM: Second bullet: Change to "The Claims Notice should include a link to a web page on the ICANN Org website containing translations of the Claims Notice in all six UN languages".
Trademark Claims Recommendation #5:
-- Use of “in general” refers to the related Trademark Claims Question #1.
-- Instead of “in general” include the reference to Question #1.
-- Since we are asking these questions about possible exceptions to the current requirement re Claims Period - we should specify that in the Recommendation rather than just using the vague "in general" language Same goes for the other Recommendation(s) for which we obliquely acknowledge these issues using "in general" language.
-- Suggest keeping the wording as it.
ACTION ITEM: Staff will check the full text to note whether there is a link between the use of “in general” and a specific example/question; in those cases we will retain the terminology, if not then staff will suggesting deleting “in general”.
Trademark Claims Recommendation #6:
-- Related to Recommendation #5. Should these be combined?
-- I think in this case, there are some nuances to 5 and 6 that support leaving them separate... one talks about maintaining mandatory Claims and the other talks about uniformity for all gTLD types.
Sunrise Question #4:
-- 4a: This part seems duplicative as Sunrise Question #3d similarly asks for suggested path to improvement. Does the WG want to keep this part?
-- Suggest keeping it the way it is – reference it in both sections.
Trademark Claims Question #1:
ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote to define “manually hand-registered domains”.
