Please find the details below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call scheduled for Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 90 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 places see: https://tinyurl.com/y54nrnsb
PROPOSED AGENDA
- Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest
- Brief Discussion: Revised Chronological listing of source documents for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) – revision with edits from Kathy Kleiman and Brian Beckham at https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1jRYPkK-S3TKA9HQIhN-wsn9M8cVg3S5J/view?usp=sharing [drive.google.com]
- To Inform Further WG Discussions: Review of the Final STI Report on TMCH and URS at https://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org]
- AOB
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
RECORDINGS
PARTICIPATION
Notes/ Action Items
Actions:
ACTION ITEM: WG members to post to the list any suggestions/thoughts they may have for whether and how to review the 36 individual URS proposals to determine inclusion in the Initial Report.
Notes:
- Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.
4. Brief Discussion:Revised Chronological listing of source documents for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) – revision with edits from Kathy Kleiman and Brian Beckham athttps://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1jRYPkK-S3TKA9HQIhN-wsn9M8cVg3S5J/view?usp=sharing [drive.google.com]
-- Were the STI recommendations policy? They weren’t Consensus Policy as not a result of a PDP. They were implementation of the 2007 policy with versions of the AGB incorporating them adjusted based on public comment.
-- The RPMs are not Consensus Policy, but depending on the recommendations of this PDP WG they could become policy.
-- How policies become binding: 1) PDP 2) agreement to be included in RAA/contracts. ICANN Org: RPMs are not Consensus Policies; but binding through their contracts to comply with the RPMs.
-- SubPro in looking at geographic names noted that the AGB differs in some respects from the policy, but the focus has been on whether there should be changes to the AGB, or if no agreement then the AGB would be the status quo.
3. To Inform Further WG Discussions: Review of the Final STI Report on TMCH and URS athttps://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org]
Link to STI report: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_8000/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf
4.1 National or Multinational Registered Marks
TMCH:
-- STI Report “The TC Database should be required to include nationally or multi-nationally registered “text mark” trademarks, from all jurisdictions, (including countries where there is no substantive review). (The
Trademarks to be included in the TC are text marks because “design marks” provide protection for letters and words only within the context of their design or logo and the STI was under a mandate not to expand existing trademark rights.”
-- There is a proposal relating to this that we will address later.
-- Instead of using technical terms that might have different meanings, using more descriptive terms: pure text", "text plus graphical/visual element", and "stylized text" -- e.g. “text-only” (words, letters, numerals); “stylized text”; “text plus design/graphical/visual element”.
-- WG could look at composite marks that are protected by law and build recommendations on them.
URS:
-- Seemed to be general agreement on the last call to go through the individual proposals and those that don’t have general agreement/wide support might not be included in the Initial Report, except perhaps in an annex.
-- ACTION: Put views on the list whether to go through some sort of an additional review process.
