[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Actions & Notes: RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team Meeting 17 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 17 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 at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-04-17+Sub+team+for+Trademark+Claims+Data+Review.

Best Regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

ACTIONS & NOTES:

Action Items:

  1.  Staff will update the summary table based on the transcript from the 17 April meeting.
  2.  Staff will open email threads on the Sub Team distribution list to facilitate drafting of the answers to charter questions and preliminary recommendations.
  3.  Staff will send a message to the Sub Team concerning the homework/preparation for next week’s meeting.
  4.  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).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190417/c0d95308/attachment.html>