[GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 10 October 2019

Thu Oct 10 18:53:08 UTC 2019

Dear All,

Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 10 October 2019 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/2019-10-10+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG.

Best Regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

Actions:

Open and Deferred TMCH Charter Questions:

  1.  Q 7: Include both proposals (Shatan and Kleiman/Muscovitch) in the Initial Report for public comment.
  2.  Q8: Agree to a proposal that section 3.2.4 should be a completely separate section.  Clarify at a structural level.  Move forward as a recommendation for the Initial Report.
  3.  Q12: Ask Maxim Alzoba to send his proposal to the list for consideration and adding to the archives/record.
  4.  Q13: Put the proposal (Karanicolas) in the Initial Report for public comment noting pros and cons from deliberations.

Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so.  See the draft survey at:  survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq69wN9&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=36glY4CKyg4JCvpnCKFaXpx9PW_r5RObgdpcO0mtVM8&s=pEK5aTpdV-IIoTgVC0PHNGEZ969HY26RoiVzAAphdcw&e=> and see email from Co-Chairs to WG: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-October/003931.html: Continue discussion on the list and put on the agenda for a meeting on Wednesday, 16 October.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest: Steve Levy had an update.  See: INSERT.

2. Conclude discussion of proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions (see attached document):

a. Revised Proposal(s) re: Charter Question 7: Proposal submitted by Greg Shatan for Q7 (1 Oct 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Comparison%20of%20Revised%20Proposal%20to%20Original%20Proposal.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1570727625020&api=v2
-- Greg added a preamble to make his proposal parallel the proposal from Kleiman/Muscovitch.
-- Clarifies the nature of the disagreement.
-- Principle differences between the proposals so include both in the Initial Report.
-- The last version of the AGB uses “word mark” but it was originally “text mark”.  Whatever the WG decides some kind of definition is a good idea.
-- I wouldn’t rely on either “text mark” or “word mark” to have a well understood “term of art” meaning, especially globally.  So if we stick with the current term, the focus is squarely on the definitional issue.
-- This proposal could be simplified by removing the “word mark”/”text mark” aspects (delete #1).
-- ACTION: Include both proposals in the Initial Report al for comment.

b. Revised Proposal(s) re: Charter Question 8: Proposal submitted by Claudio DiGangi for Q8 (1 Oct 2019) and Proposal submitted by Rebecca Tushnet for Q8 (1 Oct 2019), with comments from Paul Tattersfield:
-- Core struggle is the question of what it a trademark.
-- Also discussion about trying to do something else.  The concern is what about these other things that don’t say they are trademarks in statutes.
-- Seems like a non-issue because examples all seem to be trademarks somewhere.
-- Paul Tattersfield: Has to be specified in a statute.
-- Seems that there are bunch of laws around the world that specify GIs. If there is a national law (such as tequila in Mexico) are we okay with that?
-- Currently the AGB apparently *requires* databases to be nonexclusive; we should be clear about whether we want to change that.
-- 3.2.4 is needed -- any mark that isn't part of the RPMs.
-- It seems as though the basic change ought to be simply NOT including 3.2.4 in the chronological listing; but to explain what it includes elsewhere.  So it’s clear that the three categories before it are the ones that qualify for mandatory Sunrise and Claims.
-- 3.2.4 seems to be an over the edge case.
-- Current 4.1 of the AGB seems to require that anything run by the TMCH be non-exclusive.
-- If 3.2.4 can be divorced from the other sections, that would be a big help in clarifying this.
-- 3.2.4 could certainly be moved to 3.6 as, say, 3.6.1
-- Right, and maintain the distinction between marks that enter the TMCH for mandatory Sunrise and Claims, and marks that enter the TMCH for other registry-voluntary services.
-- 75 as of Feb 2017.
 And they had no way of deciding which of the 75 are, or are not, considered GIs under specific laws.
-- ACTION: Agree to a proposal that section 3.2.4 should be a completely separate section.  Clarify at a structural level.  Move forward as a recommendation for the Initial Report.

3. Discussion of Deferred Charter Questions (see the attached Status of WG Discussions on Agreed TMCH Charter Questions):

a. TMCH Category 4: Costs & Other Fundamental Features: Charter Questions 12 & 13 – Action: Staff to see if there are data on TMCH outages.
Question 12:
-- From Maxim: I came to the conclusion that another option is for the single TMCH operator to have a better design of the system which effectively creates two virtual TMCH operators (with the synchronization and proper redundancy).
-- ACTION: Ask Maxim to send his proposal to the list for consideration and adding to the archives/record.

Question 13:
-- Doesn’t seem to be a concern.  Cost allocations might be fine.

b. TMCH Category 5: Access & Accessibility: Charter Question 15 – Proposal submitted by Michael Karanicolas for Q15 (1 Oct 2019<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Transparency%20Proposal%20Rev.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1569963124000&api=v2>)
-- I went back to check this with my members. They still oppose it being open as their choice of what TMs to put/not out into the TMCH is part of their commercial and/or enforcement strategy.
*not put
-- ACTION: Put the proposal in the Initial Report for public comment noting pros and cons from deliberations.

4. Discussion of whether individual URS proposals should be revisited by the WG, and methodology for doing so.  See the draft survey at:  survey [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_kak3MEWFTNeq69wN9&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=36glY4CKyg4JCvpnCKFaXpx9PW_r5RObgdpcO0mtVM8&s=pEK5aTpdV-IIoTgVC0PHNGEZ969HY26RoiVzAAphdcw&e=>

-- See email from Co-Chairs to WG: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-October/003931.html
-- Continue discussion during the meeting on 16 October.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20191010/829de5d7/attachment-0001.html>