Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Susan.Payne
32:02
Apologies from me, I have to drop in 45 mins due to a conflict
Philip Corwin
32:06
Next to last meeting before consensus call -- yay!
Maxim Alzoba
32:29
Hello All, good we survived ICANN69
Andrea Glandon
33:03
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Philip Corwin
33:18
@Maxim--We traded jet lag for Zoom fatigue
Maxim Alzoba
33:24
sorry, I have an update to my SOI, I am stepping down from GNSO SSC RySG Rep. role (reflected in SOI)
Paul Tattersfield
33:56
Kathy +1 an incredible amout of work from staff
Paul McGrady
34:21
The IPC will miss you Greg!
Greg Shatan
35:10
Thanks, Paul!
Maxim Alzoba
35:23
all of us can join ALAC eventually
Julie Hedlund
37:31
@All: Just to clarify that the deadline on Friday was for a couple of action items from the meeting on 13 October, not on all of the recommendations.
Paul McGrady
39:11
What does that mean?
Ariel Liang
40:12
All recommendations that refer to Deloitte’s role is using TMCH Validation Provider. 22 occurrence in the final recommendations doc at least
Griffin Barnett
40:32
I really don’t want to argue about this terminology but we have talked about validation provider in the past and we know what it means and it is more accurate so can we just accept it
Julie Hedlund
40:57
yes
Philip Corwin
41:59
Personal view --As Ariel notes, TMCH Validation Provider is used throughout the report. Introducing a different term now risks creating confusion in implementation.
Ariel Liang
42:53
All the other final recommendations have used this term — this is not new
Mary Wong
43:23
The concept of a validation provider was in the Initial Report as well (for those, as Kathy said, who have not been focusing on this distinction prior to now).
Marie Pattullo
43:46
Agree with Phil, Griffin, Susan, staff - we know what it means.
Philip Corwin
44:15
Continuing in personal mode -- I agree with the portion of Mary's recent email in which she "suggest retaining the original wording, at least for that first clause (1) of the three-part sentence highlighted by Paul" His 2 & 3 seem less objectionable, but 1 incorrectly differentiates GIs from IP, when GIs are a form of IP.
Maxim Alzoba
44:26
For Registries and Registrars it is just TMCH (they do see only technological interfaces, and all interaction is limited to e-mail/cases in the ticket system related to malfunction/function)
Ariel Liang
45:17
Time check - 5 min left for this segment of discussion
Paul McGrady
45:23
?
Rebecca Tushnet
45:38
I'm happy to leave my comments in the chat--if properly defined (which I see it is in the intro text to the whole report, though not here), I'm ok with TMCH Validation Provider throughout for consistency.
Ariel Liang
46:08
Yes Rebecca - you will see in the executive summary, there is a footnote to define the TMCH Validation Provider. It is the first occurrence of this term
Rebecca Tushnet
46:10
I do have more concerns about rewriting the policy language in the context language. I would prefer a pure cut and paste to another rewording.
Kathryn Kleiman
46:11
Can Staff bring us to the new definition in Background
Griffin Barnett
46:15
So it should be TMCH Verification Provider?
Julie Hedlund
46:17
The correct term is TMCH Validation Provider as confirmed by staff with GDS, as we were requested to do by the WG.
Mary Wong
46:36
That is not the term that is used for Deloitte, including in the contract which is for a Validation Framework.
Rebecca Tushnet
46:51
The definitions here have several traps for the unwary, which we took a long time to navigate.
David McAuley (Verisign)
47:09
I agree with Griffin. Appreciate Paul’s concern but we are not talking about ‘validation’ as a standalone concept here but instead ‘TMCH validation’ provider and I think Griffin is right that it is clear in context.
Rebecca Tushnet
47:14
The more rewordings we offer, the more opportunity there is for non-TM experts to fall into one of those traps.
Griffin Barnett
47:18
Agree David
Griffin Barnett
47:31
Deloite validates what you ask to put in the TMCH
Paul McGrady
47:39
This seems like a personal soapbox. Do we have time for this sort of thing? If so, I want to change "Rapid" in URS to "Slightly Faster".
Griffin Barnett
47:45
This doesn’t mean they validate your trademark rights in a way a tm office does
Griffin Barnett
47:53
+1 Paul
Griffin Barnett
47:55
Lol
Griffin Barnett
48:13
We have a definition, it is accurate, it is used consistently throughout. Let’s accept that and move on
Mary Wong
48:16
Please note that all official documentation about this particular aspect of the TMCH speaks to “validation”.
Julie Hedlund
48:21
Time check: 2 minutes left for this segment.
Michael R. Graham
48:22
+1 Paul -- "TMCH Validation Provider" is accurate and understood. Leave it be!
Michael R. Graham
48:32
(Sorry for !)
Griffin Barnett
48:41
Paul’s other redlines are more problematic anyway so we need to go back to that
Kathryn Kleiman
49:05
I'm very glad to have this definition here - and tx Paul T for encouraging us to include it.
Rebecca Tushnet
49:09
I do want to get to the "context language" part which is I think more imporant
Rebecca Tushnet
49:12
*important
Paul McGrady
49:14
+1 Phil.
Michael R. Graham
49:22
+1 Phil
Steve Levy
49:36
+1 Phil
Paul Tattersfield
49:50
(1) Trademarks and other source identifiers which function as trademarks but not Geographical Indications and other forms of intellectual property.
Paul Tattersfield
49:55
AZ new one
Ariel Liang
50:05
Time is up
Paul Tattersfield
50:12
can we take it to the list
Griffin Barnett
50:20
It was on the list and was opposed
Paul Tattersfield
50:23
this language is very new
Griffin Barnett
50:47
*your changes were opposed that is; no one else had a problem with it
Mary Wong
50:56
Paul, staff did not offer any new language.
Julie Hedlund
51:00
The language is not new — as noted by staff yesterday it was sent prior to the meeting on 13 October as part of the agenda; it was also discussed and accepted by the WG on the 13th.
Mary Wong
51:33
For accuracy, staff did not raise any concerns, we were responding - at the direction of the co-chairs - to Paul’s concerns.
Paul Tattersfield
52:12
can we reach agreement on
Paul Tattersfield
52:19
(1) Trademarks and other source identifiers which function as trademarks but not Geographical Indications and other forms of intellectual property.
Julie Hedlund
52:25
The WG had already approved the language included in the context — it is not new.
Griffin Barnett
52:43
Perhaps should say non-trademark identifiers
Julie Hedlund
52:48
The original contextual language has already been approved by the WG on the 13th.
Michael R. Graham
53:08
To avoid (1) confusion change "marks" to "designations"
Griffin Barnett
53:26
I like designations better, as identifiers is used to mean domains or IPs
Mary Wong
53:26
We can just take out the word “non trademark mark” and say “intellectual property”,or identifiers or designations. Or just take out “non trademark” and leave it as “mark”.
Michael R. Graham
53:26
"other types of intellectual property" is very vague and general
Paul Tattersfield
54:02
(1) Trademarks and other source identifiers which function as trademarks but not Geographical Indications and other forms of intellectual property.
Philip Corwin
54:07
"other types of intellectual property OR geographical indications" is legally incorrect
Michael R. Graham
54:21
Compromise Paul suggested is fine, but not "other forms of intellectual property" since that includes patents, copyrighted works, etc.
Rebecca Tushnet
54:23
Griffin, "word marks" is what we ended up with.
Rebecca Tushnet
54:29
And I don't like the definition Deloitte uses
Rebecca Tushnet
54:36
but that's the language we have throughout
Mary Wong
54:42
I believe Paul said “mandatory RPMs should only be for trademarks, not [marks or other source identifiers] that do not function as trademarks, including GIs”.
Philip Corwin
54:51
We are 24 minutes into this meeting/need to move on---redrafting on the fly is never a good idea
Michael R. Graham
55:04
+1 Mary Wong's suggested version
Rebecca Tushnet
55:17
"word marks" is in the policy and we didn't change it.
Rebecca Tushnet
55:29
much as I wish we would have
Griffin Barnett
55:56
@Rebecca I get what you’re saying but we have some clarifications about what that includes which does go beyond mere word marks
Kathryn Kleiman
56:14
new hands for Paul T and Griffin?
Rebecca Tushnet
56:18
Except it doesn't on that axis of definition
Rebecca Tushnet
56:50
Some words are excluded (GIs) but word marks is still the requirement for entry in the TMCH (defined in Deloitte's way too expansive way, which I recognize I cannot change)
Griffin Barnett
57:26
I was thinking more in the way of words+designs not GIs
Griffin Barnett
57:32
Still marks per se
Rebecca Tushnet
57:45
Yes, and the definition Deloitte uses is that word+design is a word mark
Rebecca Tushnet
57:49
we have fought about that forever, and I lost
Rebecca Tushnet
57:56
and we did not change the policy language
Rebecca Tushnet
58:01
which is and remains "word mark"
Rebecca Tushnet
58:21
To use it here is completely consistent with the rest of the policy, just as with TMCH Validation Provider
Rebecca Tushnet
59:38
And I do not agree to smuggle into this language any reflection on the definition of "word mark"
Rebecca Tushnet
01:00:00
Which again, was something we talked about a lot, as Greg Shatan recalls. It was agreed that this GI language was not supposed to reflect on "word mark," the current language
Ariel Liang
01:01:34
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HJFo7JwmYH-McI1-clrVuZWRaKiflGsDnR0xqBvDqXw/edit
Mary Wong
01:03:01
Please note that staff will go through the report to pick up and correct any grammatical, typo, spelling and formatting issues, so your discussion can just focus on the substantive matters.
Michael R. Graham
01:04:33
+1 Ariel -- No need for report call-out here.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:04:38
That makes sense to me Ariel for an 'approach' section
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:06:10
Thank you, Kathy
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:13:27
One minor point - cover page says report has been submitted and the next steps says it will be submitted - may want to coordinate those two
Ariel Liang
01:13:51
Thanks David. We will check for consistency
Philip Corwin
01:13:53
lost my audio
Julie Hedlund
01:13:53
Thanks David and noted!
Mary Wong
01:14:03
We do not think it necessary or advisable to call out one RPM, especially as there is an explanation and section on status quo recommendations.
Philip Corwin
01:14:22
back now
Paul McGrady
01:14:52
Do we need the second sentence?
Griffin Barnett
01:15:53
Good point Paul
Michael R. Graham
01:16:37
+1 Paul -- no need for prospective sentence 2.
Paul McGrady
01:16:49
Once GNSO Council approves, the process as between Council and Board kicks in. We don't have to rewrite that stuff.
Marie Pattullo
01:17:38
Agree Paul - and that takes away the issues re CP.
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:47
in the GNSO ops it is ‘the Final Report is to be forwarded to the GNSO Council Chair to begin the GNSO Councildeliberation process.’
Griffin Barnett
01:18:02
Let’s put period after for its consideration (if we want to retain sentence 2 at all)
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:23
page 74 https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-24oct19-en.pdf
Griffin Barnett
01:18:24
Or consideration and potential adoption or approval (whatever the more accurate term is per the bylaws)
Justine Chew
01:18:26
Just stop at approval
Marie Pattullo
01:18:36
+1 Justine.
Griffin Barnett
01:18:45
Agree with Phil there
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:19:00
good point, Phil
Marie Pattullo
01:19:17
I meant the first "approval" :-). But OK with the second too.
Griffin Barnett
01:19:39
Just bc its prior template doesn’t make it good
Griffin Barnett
01:19:41
:)
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:57
submitted for Council deliberations ?
Paul McGrady
01:20:31
Thanks Mary. I think that does it. Much appreciated.
Griffin Barnett
01:20:31
Sounds fine Mary thank you
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:20:39
seems ok to me about maintaining sequence
Philip Corwin
01:20:46
Should we add anything about IRT implementation if the Board approves?
Mary Wong
01:21:10
@Phil, that probably won’t be necessary as an IRT isn’t mandatory.
Mary Wong
01:21:26
It is up to the GNSO Council.
Paul McGrady
01:21:31
Needed, but up to Council.
Philip Corwin
01:21:40
OK
Philip Corwin
01:22:03
Hopefully all our implementation guidance will be used
Mary Wong
01:22:57
@Phil, from the org perspective, any and all implementation guidance is always very helpful for explaining the actual recommendations!
Julie Hedlund
01:25:17
@All: We will note that these recommendations were discussed by the WG and finalized several weeks ago. No issues were raised in the factual review that occurred on 13 October.
Kathryn Kleiman
01:26:34
Can Staff bring up URS #4 and #3?
Kathryn Kleiman
01:26:56
Tx!
Griffin Barnett
01:26:58
We did discuss it, and the way staff captured it is accurate, as I noted in my email
Julie Hedlund
01:27:01
@Griffin: The language reflects the agreement of the WG.
Julie Hedlund
01:27:14
No change.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:28:45
My recollection is that we noted the language translation was into predominant language in the country of registrant
Ariel Liang
01:28:58
As of 13 October
Griffin Barnett
01:30:52
That’s correct Kathy
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:31:02
Could we get url of this doc
Ariel Liang
01:31:11
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG1Gac/edit#heading=h.iy7f8m2s666l
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:31:23
Thanks Ariel
Mary Wong
01:31:25
To reiterate - the recommendations are consistent, and there were no new changes or language introduced by staff after the WG’s agreement.
Zak Muscovitch
01:33:27
All fine, thanks everyone.
Julie Hedlund
01:34:39
@Kathy: Staff took the action item: ACTION ITEM: Change to “(1) Trademarks and other source identifiers which function as trademarks but not Geographical Indications and other forms of intellectual property” and “mandatory RPMs should only be for trademarks, not [marks or other source identifiers] that do not function as trademarks, including GIs”.
Julie Hedlund
01:34:48
Per the discussion.
Julie Hedlund
01:35:02
We will circulate the revised language.
Julie Hedlund
01:35:31
We captured the suggestions Paul T made in chat.
Griffin Barnett
01:35:57
I think we wanted designations rather than identifiers to avoid potential confusion with identifiers in the domain name and IP address sense
Kathryn Kleiman
01:36:21
Staff, can we go back to the TMCH GI Recommendation?
Julie Hedlund
01:36:32
It is on the screen.
Julie Hedlund
01:37:22
@Phil: Correct — the changes are only on the contextual language.
Griffin Barnett
01:38:45
“Mandatory RPMs should only be for trademarks not other source designations that are not trademarks, including Geographical Indications, while other types of non-trademark designations can be entered into an additional/ancillary database…. ...other types of designations should be preserved...
Paul McGrady
01:38:54
Have we reached the presupposition that the team wants to reopen all of this? I think that is a gating question that has not been asked.
Philip Corwin
01:39:16
OK, let's take it to the list with the aim of resolving on Thursday
Griffin Barnett
01:39:18
But yes we ought to circulate on list, not try and wordsmith this on the fly here
Julie Hedlund
01:39:36
@All: Staff has the action item to circulate it to the list.
Julie Hedlund
01:41:11
Nothing more to do.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:41:19
Thank you Kathy, staff, and all – one Working session left, seems amazing.
Maxim Alzoba
01:41:26
thanks all
Zak Muscovitch
01:41:30
Let's all resolve that this is the greatest report ever :)
Julie Hedlund
01:41:34
As it was we had already completed the agenda.
Griffin Barnett
01:41:36
Thanks all
Paul Tattersfield
01:41:44
thanks all
Michael R. Graham
01:41:46
Thanks all
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:41:55
+1 Kathy
Paul Tattersfield
01:41:59
Kathy +1
Zak Muscovitch
01:42:06
+1 Kathy
Paul Tattersfield
01:42:14
bye all