[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 8 June 2017

[Dorrain, Kristine]

Claudio, thanks for this explanation.

I want to follow up on your last point about discussing LRPs.  Limited registration periods are unrelated to RPMs.  They are periods during which the registry operator can select certain groups for “first come” access to the TLD based on the RO’s business plan for that TLD.  If an RO wants to use the TMCH, or a GI list, or some organization’s membership list, or some other criteria to validate their LRP criteria, then that’s up to them.  Can you help me understand what about LRP you think is ripe for discussion on the RPMs WG?

Thank you,

Kristine

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of claudio di gangi
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 11:37 AM
To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 8 June 2017

Dear all,

I was on the call but not on the chat, so helpful to read the chat comments.

As Jonathan suggested on the call, I think we need to get more info from Deloitte about the 75 records in the TMCH that went in under the Statute or Treaty category.

Specifically, we need to find out if, how many, and which of 75 records (out of the 40,000+) consist of GIs that are not protected as certification or collective marks. I don't think Deloitte has provided an answer to this question because I don't think they organized things in this manner but I leave it up to them to respond.

Also, I wanted to inform the full group that I withdrew my proposal about including GIs in the TMCH because it was based on my misunderstanding of the work plan, as I joined the WG midstream. I'm sorry for any confusion that caused.

So the upcoming poll questions on GIs will be based solely on Kathy's and Paul's proposals that GIs be removed from the TMCH (hence the importance of determing more about the 75 records discussed above if folks want to remove any of them).

The question I asked Phil last night was whether the TMCH questions will forclude discussion of other issues relating to GIs further down the road, such as the voluntary RPMs. Phil responded that those issues will not be closed off based on the TMCH questions, which makes sense to me.

The example that I provided was .PARIS, which describes a limited registration period in their launch plan in which GIs can be protected after the Sunrise. Since this is not related to the TMCH proposals we have been discussing, Phil stated these issues can be reviewed in that context, which is consistent with my understanding.

Best regards,
Claudio

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:41 PM Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Working Group Members,

Below are the action items from this morning Working Group call. The action items, notes, documents/materials, recordings and transcripts will be posted on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/XjfwAw, when they are available.

Thanks.

Amr


Action Items:


1.       Working Group Co-Chairs to review the draft poll questions regarding the open TMCH questions on Design Marks and Geographic Indications, before they are circulated to the full WG mailing list for responses.

2.       Staff to send original draft questions on private protections to the Sub Team, along with edited version (edited by Jon Nevett and Susan Payne)

3.       Private Protections Sub Team to determine adopting, rejecting or rewriting questions as it deems appropriate, and provide recommendations to the full Working Group for its consideration

4.       Staff to send a reminder to the WG mailing list indicating that membership in the Private Protections Sub Team is still open

5.       Staff to compile any comments made on the Working Group mailing list regarding the Co-Chairs' questions on private protections, and send them to the Sub Team for its consideration

6.       Staff to recirculate previous questions sent to, and answered by Deloitte to the Working Group mailing list

7.       Trademark Claims Sub Team to synthesize the three proposals (by Greg Shatan, Michael Graham and Brian Winterfeldt) into an appropriate Charter question(s), and suggest (if appropriate) what data might be needed to be collected


_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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/20170608/25ce4fa2/attachment-0001.html>