[gnso-rpm-wg] Notes and Actions from the Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group on 17 August 2016

[Dawahi Khouloud]

 A question  @David  when it comes to action '' i. WG members to provide
scenarios to illustrate bad faith/abusive conduct in question to ICANN
Compliance by next week's call" I think it is very important indeed .So
should we look for   ambigious situation regarding this matter in some
preexistant arbitration decisions  or conceive a situation  ?
On Aug 17, 2016 7:55 PM, "David Tait" <david.tait at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Here are the staff notes and action items from the Working Group (WG) call
> held earlier today. For your convenience, we have categorized them into
> four main issues, as you’ll see below: these are (1) TMCH provider
> questions and proposed community survey, (2) Questions for ICANN
> Compliance, (3) Issues/Concerns/Suggestions regarding the TM-PDDRP and (4)
> the next meeting.
>
>
>
> 1)       *TMCH Provider questions and community survey*
>
>
>
> *ACTION: WG members to review document of provider questions and community
> Survey previously circulated by MW by CoB Friday;*
>
>
>
> 2)       *Questions for ICANN Compliance*
>
>
>
> The WG considered questions to be submitted to ICANN Compliance.
>
>
>
> *ACTION: *
>
> *         i.            **WG members to provide scenarios to illustrate
> bad faith/abusive conduct in question to ICANN Compliance by next week's
> call;*
>
>
>
> *       ii.            **Staff to prepare revised questions for
> compliance in relation to the handling of complaints from third-parties
> regarding abusive conduct;*
>
>
>
> *      iii.            **WG Volunteers to review existing, publicly
> available metrics published by ICANN Compliance.*
>
>
>
> 3)       *Consideration of Issues/Concerns/Suggestions regarding the
> TM-PDDRP*
>
>
>
> Doodle poll shows no support for continuing discussion regarding burden of
> proof at this point, however, in the event of new concerns emerging or a
> demand to revisit the topic arising it would be possible to revisit this
> topic;
>
>
>
> Remedies – Consideration of this issue is to be paused until more input
> has been received from the Community survey
>
>
>
> *         i.            **ACTION: Staff to prepare a specific question to
> the registries regarding vagueness of remedies to be sent alongside other
> requests for information for consideration by WG *
>
>
>
> Optional Mediation- The WG considered that there was a need to convene a
> sub-team to review the issue of Optional mediation and put forward an
> outline proposal for consideration by WG.
>
>
>
> *       ii.            **ACTION: (Staff to issue call for volunteers on
> the list before next meeting)*
>
>
>
> 4)       *Next meeting*
>
>
>
> The next meeting of the WG to take place at 2100 UTC Wednesday 24 August
>
>
>
> *ACTION: WG members to be prepared to discuss Analysis Group report.*
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> David A. Tait
>
> Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland)
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>
> Mobile: + 44-7864-793776
>
> Email:  david.tait at icann.org
>
> www.icann.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160821/01d76a92/attachment.html>