[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Actions & Notes: RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team Meeting 10 April 2019 1700 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team meeting held on 10 April 2019 (17:00-18:00 UTC).  Staff will post them to the wiki space.  Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki.

Best Regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

ACTIONS & NOTES:

Actions:

  1.  Staff, as a continuation of the action item from the 03 April call, will continue to compile into the summary table draft language for preliminary recommendations as suggested in the Sub Team discussions.  Staff will initiate email threads on charter questions under discussion and associated draft preliminary recommendations for Sub Team members to review and discuss.
  2.  Sub Team members: Complete the homework (see separate [HOMEWORK] email) in preparation for the next meeting:
     *   Reviewing Agreed TM Claims Charter Question 2, in conjunction with Individual Proposals #1 and #12;
     *   Reviewing Agreed TM Claims Charter Question 1, in conjunction with Individual Proposals #5 and #6.

Notes:

1.   Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.

2.   Development of Preliminary Recommendations:
      a. Discuss individual proposals relating to questions 2 and 3 (see individual proposals at: https://community.icann.org/x/R6EWBg)

Question 2: individual proposals #1 and #12

Individual Proposal #1:
-- Sub Team members noting that they are not in favor of the proposal.
-- Focus attention on things we have identified to improve.
-- No evidence that the bad effects of RPMs outweigh the benefits.
-- Registries/Registrars comments on eliminating or shortening the claims doesn't seem to have an effect on cybersquatting.

Individual Proposal #12:
-- We don't know the effects that the current period is having.  Don't know that we have evidence to justify extending it.
-- Support for the proposal -- intertwined with improving the TM Claims notice.  If the does what we'd like it to do then it provides a service for the applicants and TM holder.  If we have a valid claims statement then this is a rational suggestion.
-- Think we have talked about this.
-- Value to put this as a question for comment.
-- Could compile a list of data we think should be collected for future review.
-- Thought there was agreement to put the proposal out for comment.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190411/4131a875/attachment.html>