Page History

...

For other times:  http://tinyurl.com/ybhooqaf

Agenda:

1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest
2. Status updates from chairs of the Sunrise & TM Claims Sub Teams

• This meeting will be the last call for your comments on the proposed TM Claims questions (circulated earlier this week, recirculated yesterday, and posted to the Working Group wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/EQbwAw[community.icann.org])
• [if available] Working Group to discuss data collection report from TM Claims Sub Team
• Co-Chairs to describe suggested poll on these issues, and propose deadline for closing the poll
• The questions will be referred to the Sub Team for refining and to develop suggestions on data collection
• This meeting will be the last call for your comments on the draft questions before they are referred to the Sub Team (circulated earlier this week, recirculated yesterday, and posted to the wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/EQbwAw)[community.icann.org]

1. Agree on next steps for open TMCH questions on design marks and GIs

1. Discuss Working Group members’ feedback on proposed Private Protections questions

1. Discuss next steps on Exact Match proposal(s) (i.e. proposals/ideas received from Michael Graham, Greg Shatan, Brian Winterfeldt)
2. Discuss draft updated Work Plan (to be circulated by staff prior to the call)
3. Poll members on whether to have a call on 21 June 2017

Documents:

1. Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Questions

2. Trademark Claims Sub Team Questions

3. Proposed Private Protections Questions

4. Proposals for Smarter Non-Exact Matches

5. Updated Work Plan - June 6, 2017 

Mp3

Adobe Connect recording

Transcript

AC Chat

Attendance

Apologies:  

Follow up notes: 

Susan Payne, Jon Nevett, Marie Pattullo 

Action Items:

1. Working Group Co-Chairs to review the draft poll questions regarding the open TMCH questions on Design Marks and Geographic Indications, before they are circulated to the full WG mailing list for responses.
2. Staff to send original draft questions on private protections to the Sub Team, along with edited version (edited by Jon Nevett and Susan Payne)
3. Private Protections Sub Team to determine adopting, rejecting or rewriting questions as it deems appropriate, and provide recommendations to the full Working Group for its consideration
4. Staff to send a reminder to the WG mailing list indicating that membership in the Private Protections Sub Team is still open
5. Staff to compile any comments made on the Working Group mailing list regarding the Co-Chairs' questions on private protections, and send them to the Sub Team for its consideration
6. Staff to recirculate previous questions sent to, and answered by Deloitte to the Working Group mailing list
7. Trademark Claims Sub Team to synthesize the three proposals (by Greg Shatan, Michael Graham and Brian Winterfeldt) into an appropriate Charter question(s), and suggest (if appropriate) what data might be needed to be collected

Follow up notes: 

These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki here.

1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest

• No updates to SoIs
• 3 participants on the call from the APAC region

2. Status updates from chairs of the Sunrise & TM Claims Sub Teams

• Update on progress from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team
  • Sub Team not yet done with refinements to the Charter questions
  • Some questions have been batched and color-coded
  • Some batched questions have been consolidated
  • Changes/refinements to the Charter questions are still being done
  • Once refinements are complete, Sub Team will move on to identifying data collection requirements
• Update on progress for the Trademarks Claims Sub Team
  • Sub Team has finalized refinement of Charter questions
  • Sub Team now identifying data requirements to assist in answering the questions
  • Focus recently has been data requirements to make sense of the abandonment rate stated in the Analysis Group Revised Report
  • Sub Team expected to finalize work within 1 – 2 weeks

3. Agree on next steps for open TMCH questions on design marks and GIs

• Co-Chair update on suggested poll
• Draft poll sent to the Co-Chairs – staff will resend, and Co-Chairs will review prior to circulation to the full WG mailing list, and determine how long the poll would be open for responses (suggestion for poll to remain open for one week)
• Poll questions presented as statements that WG members are asked to indicate agreement/disagreement on
• Free text boxes attached to each of the questions, so that respondents may provide rationale on answers to the questions
• Poll requires respondents to submit their names to ensure that only WG members’ responses are considered (WG Observers not meant to provide responses), as well as to associate the positions stated in the poll with WG members
• Poll questions limited to issues on Design Marks and GIs – is there any data required for WG members to respond to these questions? WG members may indicate data requirements in the text boxes attached to each question
• Poll answers will not be anonymized
• Poll not meant to indicate any formal WG consensus – only meant to provide the current level of agreement (gauge current level of consensus) on Design Marks and GIs issues
• The poll questions try to synthesize in various statements/questions the state of the WG to date on the various proposals
• Part of the objective of providing rationale to answers is to determine if statements in the poll may be adjusted to increase rough consensus of WG members on the statements
• More data on GIs registered in the TMCH under the category of marks protected by statutes/treaties is needed - Staff to recirculate answers to questions sent to Deloitte

4. Discuss Working Group members’ feedback on proposed Private Protections questions

• This call is the last opportunity to submit suggested edits to the questions before they are referred to the Sub Team
• Questions not based on Charter questions – there is no requirement to resolve any of them
• Objective is to identify what is being offered in the private sector, and what, if any, interplay exists between them and the protections mandated by ICANN policy
• Sub Team will decide which version of the questions it will begin deliberations on – those suggested by the Co-Chairs, or the questions that were edited by WG members
• Sub Team should begin its work as soon as possible
• Not all private protections are tied to the TMCH as the DPML is – the registry-specific protections may vary across different Registry Operators depending on their service model
• Discussion took place on-list regarding concerns raised on edits to the questions – WG members encouraged to join the Sub Team if they have an interest in its work
• If GI issues include additional protections (example: LRP associated with .PARIS), they may be considered in the context of the Sub Team’s work – Draft poll limited to the context of the TMCH, and does not have any bearing on private protections

5. Discuss next steps on Non-Exact Match proposal(s) (i.e. proposals/ideas received from Michael Graham, Greg Shatan, Brian Winterfeldt)

• These proposals may not be an issue for the TMCH – TMCH should only include validated registered trademarks
• Proposals is not related to Sunrise Registrations, but rather where the non-exact matches may fit in to how Claims Notices are generated, possibly only notices to the registered rights holder (possibly not domain name registrants)
• Makes more sense to discuss the proposals in the Trademark Claims context
• Will the Trademark Claims Sub Team need to generate more questions to address the proposals?
• Proposals to be sent to the Trademark Claims Sub Team, so that additional question(s) may be suggested, as appropriate
• Greg Shatan, Michael Graham and Brian Winterfeldt may propose draft question(s) for the Sub Team to consider
• Important to note that inclusion of non-exact matches in the Claims Notices triggering process will vastly increase the number of notices generated – Sub Team should consider a potential chilling effect on potential legitimate registrants, and that notices might only be sent to trademark holders, and not domain name registrants
• Proposals/questions on the proposals need to be refined to balance concerns raised by them, and concerns on false positives that may be a result of non-exact matches generating Claims Notices – need to also consider practicality of implementation
• Trademark Claims is only asked to synthesize questions from the proposals, and identify required data – Evaluation of proposals and answering the questions will be done by the full WG during the Trademark Claims Review – Sub Team will not evaluate any of the substantive policy issues

6. Discuss draft updated Work Plan (to be circulated by staff prior to the call)

• Initial report on Phase 1 for public comment projected to take place in April 2018
• Public comment period is set to take place for 40 days
• Public comment period may be used to lay the groundwork for the URDP/URS review
• If preliminary draft recommendations are ready prior to ICANN 61, those can be shared with the broader community at ICANN 61 to solicit input prior to the initial report being published
• WG could apply for a cross-community session at ICANN 61 to hold a discussion on the draft recommendations prior to initial report publication

7. Poll members on whether to have a call on 21 June 2017

• Unlikely that there will be a conflict with travel on 21 June
• Tentative agreement to hold a call at the regular time at 16:00 UTC on 21 June

8. Next WG call scheduled to take place on 14 June, 2017 at 16:00 UTC