[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 17 May 2017
mary.wong at icann.org
Wed May 17 23:12:20 UTC 2017
Hello Claudio and everyone,
In the case of this particular Action Item, the staff understanding is that we will ask the full Working Group (especially those members who could not attend the call held earlier today) if they agree that the Working Group will not be considering the question of whether GIs should be included in the TMCH. If that is the general view of the Working Group, then the next step can be for those in favor of including GIs in the TMCH to work on a proposal that can be sent to the GNSO Council in respect of source identifiers (such as GIs and other than as registered trademarks) that may be protectable but not necessarily intended to be covered by the current scope of the TMCH. This may take the form of a new PDP or possibly be a separate matter to be discussed at the appropriate time by this group.
I hope this is helpful. Once the recording and transcript of the call today are available, staff will follow up with the Working Group to find out what the general view of the group is on this GI questions.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 00:38
To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 17 May 2017
I would like to request guidance on the last action item, #5...
I'm confused why the Council would consider a PDP on the TMCH and a certain form of IP, when those issues are supposed to be addressed by this Working Group?
Or was this action item intended to convey something different?
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:25 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 today’s Working Group call. They are also posted along with the notes, meeting documents/materials, attendance, recordings and transcripts on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/egffAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_egffAw&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=ChPYu7Pom9Q696Uwc8-dT46u9trdGITKjSEadA6pzZ8&s=gBvKh0Vr3M8dBZqDSkduiGQ0pU3m58XAovvRQP65PjM&e=>
1. Staff to circulate a call for consensus on the Working Group mailing list regarding the Working Group consideration of proposals to include Geographical Indications in the TMCH
2. Staff to consolidate resources of data/work available on consideration of non-exact matches generating Claims Notices, and share with the Working Group
3. Michael Graham to repost his proposal on trademark non-exact matches generating Claims Notices, with refinements based on discussions held to-date
4. Rebecca Tushnet to repost suggestions on data required to evaluate the proposal to extend the match criteria of permissible records in the TMCH (DONE)
5. Claudio Di Gangi, Jonathan Agmon and Massimo Vittori to consider drafting a proposal for the GNSO Council to consider a PDP on inclusion of Geographical Indications in the TMCH
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg