[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Next Meeting 02 May 17:00 UTC re: Actions & Notes: RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team Meeting 24 April 2019 1700 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear all,

Per action item 1 below and based on the discussion on today’s call, it seems that there is general agreement that next week’s call can be rescheduled to Thursday, 02 May at 17:00 UTC due to the holiday on 01 May.  Unless we hear otherwise staff will ask the GNSO Secretariat to schedule the call accordingly.

Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

From: Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 3:44 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Actions & Notes: RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team Meeting 24 April 2019 1700 UTC

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team meeting held on 24 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/2019-04-24+Sub+team+for+Trademark+Claims+Data+Review.

Best Regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

ACTIONS & NOTES:

Action Items:


  1.  Staff will ask Sub Team members whether there are any objections to moving next week’s call to 02 May at 17:00 UTC.
  2.  Staff will start up discussion threads based on the call and in coordination with the Sub Team Co-Chairs.
  3.  Staff will update the summary table based on the transcript/recording from the meeting.
  4.  Sub Team members will review the homework assignments in preparation for the next meeting.

Brief Notes:

Question 1:

Answer to Question to 1(a):
-- Change to “appears to be having its intended effect.”?
-- Keep as “possibly having unintended consequences”
-- Insufficient data to know the extent of the effect, had to look for unintended consequences.  Support for “appears to be having its intended effect”.

Preliminary Recommendation:
-- Re: reference to Q3 -- doesn’t go to the question of intended or unintended effect.  Even have the answer be more detailed in Q3 or add to the recommendation in Q1.
-- Other sub team members appear to support the language in the Q3 preliminary recommendation.
-- Could add an introductory sentence in Q3 that links back to Q1 that the aim of the revision of the Claims Notice would be to increase the deterrence effect and the useful information for potential registrants and their intended use of the domain.
-- Also include the explanation in Q1.

Proposal #5:
-- We do know why people abandon checkouts.
-- Seems to be fixing a hypothetical problem.
-- Seems general agreement

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190424/d8e2cac6/attachment-0001.html>