The Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Trademark Claims Data Review is scheduled on Wednesday, 17 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: http://tinyurl.com/yyhkuw2b
PROPOSED AGENDA
- Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs)
- Zoom Introduction
- Development of Preliminary Recommendations:
- Continue review of agreed TM Claims Charter Question 2 (see attached summary table), in conjunction with Individual Proposals #1 and #12 (see attached PDFs)
- Discuss agreed TM Claims Charter Question 1 (see attached summary table), in conjunction with Individual Proposals #5 and #6 (see attached PDFs)
- AOB
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
RECORDINGS
PARTICIPATION
Notes/ Action Items
Action Items:
- Staff will update the summary table based on the transcript from the 17 April meeting.
- Staff will open email threads on the Sub Team distribution list to facilitate drafting of the answers to charter questions and preliminary recommendations.
- Staff will send a message to the Sub Team concerning the homework/preparation for next week’s meeting.
- Sub Team members will be encouraged to continue discussions on the email threads and complete the homework.
Brief Notes:
Question 2(a):
-- Answer seems to go further than we discussed. Think we discussed that there are limitations in the data. A lack of data one way or the other.
-- Staff referenced the transcript and tried to summarize the discussion. If we have mischaracterized then we can check the transcript and update accordingly.
-- Drafting seems to be in the passive voice -- we should answer directly: yes or no. Answer is no, but registries should have the option to extend.
Question 2(b):
-- Discussion but no agreement on shortening it, as no use cases to support.
Question 2(c):
-- Not consistent with 2(a), (b), and (d). Need to make sure they are not contradictory. Strike the first sentence, “The claims period should be mandatory…”
-- Thought when we were talking about flexibility it was the option to extend it -- not flexibility for business models. Not sure this is supported by the responses from Registry Operators.
Question 2(d):
-- Some data indicated that there should be more nuance on who the claim should be applied to: what is the data?
-- Didn’t have data from the wider community on the applicability.
-- Could look at data from Sunrise.
-- Don’t agree that some TLDs should be exempt from the Claims RPMs (not sure that was agreed). Can’t say that when we also say we need more information.
Question 2(e):
-- Discussed proposal from George Kirikos, #2. Disagree: Don’t think the Sub Team should pass this on to the full WG.
-- Staff wasn’t sure if Individual Proposal #2 relates to Question 2(e).