[gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week

Fri Apr 28 18:48:16 UTC 2017

Thanks,  Paul.

I listened to that part of the call again, and after the presentation of
the proposal, Phil took comments from George, Greg, and Jonathan (all
provided input/ideas about ways GIs could be protected) and there was a
request for staff to obtain more background on the 'marks protected by
statute or treaty' language.

There didn't seem to be a conclusion, hence my earlier email about next
steps.

Please let me know if I missing something.

Best regards,
Claudio

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:09 PM icannlists <icannlists at winston.com> wrote:

> Thanks Claudio.  However, after the last WG call I thought we had reached
> the opposite conclusion that there was little or no interest in taking up
> the GIs issue at this time.  Jonathan A. thought he might put forward a
> third proposal on GIs, but I haven’t seen that yet on this (or at least I
> don’t think I have).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *claudio di gangi
> *Sent:* Friday, April 28, 2017 12:58 PM
> *To:* Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
>
>
>
> Mary, all,
>
>
>
> I just recently joined the WG, so I'm reading the listserve to get caught
> up to speed. It's been very helpful and informative to review all the
> contributions.
>
>
>
> An initial question: is a work plan being established for addressing
> issues that were discussed on Wednesday's call?
>
>
>
> For example, on Paul and Kathy's proposal related to GIs - I think the
> group has identified a good issue worthy of further analysis, e.g. should
> GIs be protected against registration abuse, as a consumer safeguard in new
> gTLDs?
>
>
>
> If that approach is supported by the analysis, they could be registered in
> the limited registration period that is currently described in the
> Applicant Guidebook, that takes place following the Sunrise period,
> supported by the Clearinghouse or an ancillary database.
>
>
>
> On the basis that further analysis of this topic would be helpful to
> inform WG deliberations, where should it take place - on the Sunrise
> subteam or somewhere else?
>
>
>
> I'm looking forward to working with everyone on the team.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:42 PM Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The proposed agenda for our call this Thursday at 0300 UTC (reminder:
> Wednesday evening/night for those in the Americas) is as follows; please
> also see the Notes that are included below:
>
>
>
> 1.       Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to
> Statements of Interest
>
> 2.       Report on progress and status updates from the co-chairs of the
> Sunrise and Claims Notice Sub Teams (Lori Schulman, Kristine Dorrain &
> Michael Graham) – 5 minutes for each Sub Team update
>
> 3.       Discuss consolidated table of proposals received on TMCH Open
> Questions 7, 8 and 10 (see Notes below)
>
> 4.       Notice of deadline for further follow up questions to the
> Analysis Group
>
> 5.       Next steps/next meeting
>
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
> o    For *Agenda Item #2*, the composition, meeting transcripts and
> current work status of each of the two Sub Teams can be viewed at their
> respective wiki pages: https://community.icann.org/x/msrRAw (Sunrise) and
> https://community.icann.org/x/psrRAw (Claims).
>
>
>
> o    For *Agenda Item #3*, please review the first attached document.
> This is the tabular form of all proposals received to date on the three
> open TMCH questions (Questions 7, 8 and 10) as of the 19 April deadline.
> Staff has not edited the language of the proposals received, although we
> have formatted them to some extent to enable easier reading, and we have
> also separated out accompanying rationale and context (where this was
> provided) and pasted these into a second table (starting on Page 7).
>
>
>
> For your reference, we are also attaching a second document, which is a
> compilation of other proposals received so far. Please note that these
> proposals are being circulated for your information only, and will *not*
> be discussed at this time as they concern topics that have either been
> deferred or that have to do with Sunrise and/or Claims. The co-chairs may
> refer these to the Sub Teams, but only for the specific purpose of seeing
> if the subjects have been covered by existing Charter questions, or if they
> can be helpful in refining the existing Charter questions.
>
>
>
> Finally, the co-chairs and staff are aware that Working Group members have
> requested that agendas and documents be circulated as much in advance of
> the minimum 24-hour deadline as possible. We were not able to comply with
> that request this week due to a personal situation for one of the
> co-chairs; however, going forward, the co-chairs plan to meet with staff
> every Friday to ensure that agendas and, if possible, documents, are
> available and distributed earlier.
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
> ------------------------------
> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this
> message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
> Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
> the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be
> used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties
> under applicable tax laws and regulations.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170428/dcf83790/attachment-0001.html>