[GNSO-RPM-WG] Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 10 September 2020

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear All,

Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 10 September 2020 at 17:00 UTC.  Staff will post these 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, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-09-10+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG.

Best Regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

Actions:

ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Implementation Guidance (was Recommendation #7):
-- RE: “Consequently, the Working Group agrees that the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) is not intended to allow challenges to Sunrise Registrations on the grounds that the Trademark Record on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is invalid.”: Add a short sentence that the SDRP is intended to allow (with description).
-- In footnote 10, we use a lot of capitalized terms – add that they are taken from Module 5 of the AGB.

ACTION ITEM: TM Claims Recommendation #2:  In WG deliberations – make it clear that the change from “should” to “MUST” is in the second bullet point of the recommendation.

ACTION ITEM: TM Claims Recommendation #4 and Rec #5: Re: “and Section 6 of Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement” – indicate that this is a new recommendation, not the status quo.  Also update the context and WG deliberations. Remove the context relating to the old Recs #4 and #5 incorrect reference to exceptions to Specs 13 and 9: for all new gTLDs, with the exception of those gTLDs who receive exemptions pursuant to Specification 13 and Section 6 of Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement (or their equivalent in subsequent new gTLD expansion rounds).”  Reorder to improve the flow.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

2. Update from Small Team on Sunrise Questions #3-#5 (TBD): Nothing new to report at this time.

3. Review Sunrise and TM Claims Final Recommendations; see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW-1Q4/edit?usp=sharing:

Sunrise Recommendations:

-- Sunrise Recommendation #2 is deferred for discussion on Tuesday, 15 September when the Small Team 2 may have some language for the WG to consider in relation to this recommendation.

Overview:
-- Opportunity for WG to review draft Final Recommendations.
-- Context is from the Initial Report but may have been expanded based on the WG deliberations.
-- Summary of the WG’s deliberations – mostly based on what has been reviewed already in the public comment review analysis document.  It is not new.
-- The text provides context and background to the draft Final Recommendations.

Sunrise Recommendation #6:
-- Put footnote in recommendation text.
-- Context language is from the Initial Report without changes.

Sunrise Recommendation #5:
-- No change from preliminary recommendation based on WG deliberation.

Sunrise Recommendation #1:
-- No change from preliminary recommendation based on WG deliberation.

Sunrise Recommendation #8:
-- Minor text change for grammatical correctness.
-- No change in context from the Initial Report except grammatical adjustments.
-- Support for the grammatical changes.

Sunrise Recommendation #3:
-- Add language to the recommendation to clarify the scope.
-- Context language has not changed.

Sunrise Recommendation #4:
-- Public comment review section: public comments raised issue of Registry operational practices, which the WG considered.  But did not agree to this as a mandatory recommendation.

Sunrise Implementation Guidance:

Sunrise Implementation Guidance (was Recommendation #7):
-- RE: “Consequently, the Working Group agrees that the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) is not intended to allow challenges to Sunrise Registrations on the grounds that the Trademark Record on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is invalid.”: Add a short sentence that the SDRP is intended to allow (with description).
-- In footnote 10, we use a lot of capitalized terms – add that they are taken from Module 5 of the AGB.
ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Implementation Guidance (was Recommendation #7):
-- RE: “Consequently, the Working Group agrees that the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) is not intended to allow challenges to Sunrise Registrations on the grounds that the Trademark Record on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is invalid.”: Add a short sentence that the SDRP is intended to allow (with description).
-- In footnote 10, we use a lot of capitalized terms – add that they are taken from Module 5 of the AGB.

TM Claims Recommendations:

TM Claims Recommendation #2:
-- WG agreed to change “should” to “MUST” and a minor grammatical change (“containing” to “contains”).
-- In Context, added TM Claims RPM.
-- In WG deliberations – make it clear that the change from “should” to “MUST” is in the second bullet point of the recommendation.
ACTION ITEM: TM Claims Recommendation #2:  In WG deliberations – make it clear that the change from “should” to “MUST” is in the second bullet point of the recommendation.

TM Claims Recommendation #4:
-- Changes clarified what TLDs are exempt.
-- Clarified the claims period should run through the LRP.
-- Public Comment Review provides the explanation of where these changes came from and why the WG agreed.
-- Re: “and Section 6 of Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement” – this is a new recommendation, not the status quo.
-- Remove the context relating to the old Recs #4 and #5 incorrect reference to exceptions to Specs 13 and 9.

TM Claims Recommendation #5:
--  Re: “and Section 6 of Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement” – this is a new recommendation, not the status quo.
-- Remove the context relating to the old Recs #4 and #5 incorrect reference to exceptions to Specs 13 and 9.

ACTION ITEM: TM Claims Recommendation #4 and Rec #5: Re: “and Section 6 of Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement” – indicate that this is a new recommendation, not the status quo.  Also update the context and WG deliberations. Remove the context relating to the old Recs #4 and #5 incorrect reference to exceptions to Specs 13 and 9: for all new gTLDs, with the exception of those gTLDs who receive exemptions pursuant to Specification 13 and Section 6 of Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement (or their equivalent in subsequent new gTLD expansion rounds).”  Reorder to improve the flow.

TM Claims Recommendation #6:
-- No changes to the preliminary recommendation.

TM Claims Implementation Guidance:

TM Claims Implementation Guidance (was Recommendation #3):
-- Changed to Implementation Guidance since this recommendation is focused on operational issues.

TM Claims Implementation Guidance (was Recommendation #1):
-- Main redline is the third bullet – giving IRT flexibility to get input from internal or external resources.
-- No change in the contextual language.
-- Public Comment Review just notes the deliberations on the agreement to give the IRT flexibility.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200910/1b1d54f4/attachment-0001.html>