Apologies from me, I have to drop in 45 mins due to a conflict

Next to last meeting before consensus call -- yay!

Hello All, good we survived ICANN69

Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

@Maxim--We traded jet lag for Zoom fatigue

sorry, I have an update to my SOI, I am stepping down from GNSO SSC RySG Rep. role (reflected in SOI)

Kathy +1 an incredible amout of work from staff

The IPC will miss you Greg!

Thanks, Paul!

all of us can join ALAC eventually

@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.

What does that mean?

All recommendations that refer to Deloitte’s role is using TMCH Validation Provider. 22 occurrence in the final recommendations doc at least

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

yes

Personal view --As Ariel notes, TMCH Validation Provider is used throughout the report. Introducing a different term now risks creating confusion in implementation.

All the other final recommendations have used this term — this is not new

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).

Agree with Phil, Griffin, Susan, staff - we know what it means.

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.

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)

Time check - 5 min left for this segment of discussion

?

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.

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

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.

Can Staff bring us to the new definition in Background

So it should be TMCH Verification Provider?

The correct term is TMCH Validation Provider as confirmed by staff with GDS, as we were requested to do by the WG.

That is not the term that is used for Deloitte, including in the contract which is for a Validation Framework.

The definitions here have several traps for the unwary, which we took a long time to navigate.

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.

The more rewordings we offer, the more opportunity there is for non-TM experts to fall into one of those traps.

Agree David

Deloite validates what you ask to put in the TMCH

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".

This doesn’t mean they validate your trademark rights in a way a tm office does

+1 Paul

Lol

We have a definition, it is accurate, it is used consistently throughout. Let’s accept that and move on

Please note that all official documentation about this particular aspect of the TMCH speaks to “validation”.

Time check: 2 minutes left for this segment.

+1 Paul -- "TMCH Validation Provider" is accurate and understood. Leave it be!

(Sorry for !)

Paul’s other redlines are more problematic anyway so we need to go back to that

I'm very glad to have this definition here - and tx Paul T for encouraging us to include it.

I do want to get to the "context language" part which is I think more imporant

*important

+1 Phil.

+1 Phil

+1 Phil

(1) Trademarks and other source identifiers which function as trademarks but not Geographical Indications and other forms of intellectual property.

AZ new one

Time is up

can we take it to the list

It was on the list and was opposed

this language is very new

*your changes were opposed that is; no one else had a problem with it

Paul, staff did not offer any new language.

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.

For accuracy, staff did not raise any concerns, we were responding - at the direction of the co-chairs - to Paul’s concerns.

can we reach agreement on

(1) Trademarks and other source identifiers which function as trademarks but not Geographical Indications and other forms of intellectual property.

The WG had already approved the language included in the context — it is not new.

Perhaps should say non-trademark identifiers

The original contextual language has already been approved by the WG on the 13th.

To avoid (1) confusion change "marks" to "designations"

I like designations better, as identifiers is used to mean domains or IPs

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”.

"other types of intellectual property" is very vague and general

(1) Trademarks and other source identifiers which function as trademarks but not Geographical Indications and other forms of intellectual property.

"other types of intellectual property OR geographical indications" is legally incorrect

Compromise Paul suggested is fine, but not "other forms of intellectual property" since that includes patents, copyrighted works, etc.

Griffin, "word marks" is what we ended up with.

And I don't like the definition Deloitte uses

but that's the language we have throughout

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”.

We are 24 minutes into this meeting/need to move on---redrafting on the fly is never a good idea

+1 Mary Wong's suggested version

"word marks" is in the policy and we didn't change it.

much as I wish we would have

@Rebecca I get what you’re saying but we have some clarifications about what that includes which does go beyond mere word marks

new hands for Paul T and Griffin?

Except it doesn't on that axis of definition

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)

I was thinking more in the way of words+designs not GIs

Still marks per se

Yes, and the definition Deloitte uses is that word+design is a word mark

we have fought about that forever, and I lost

and we did not change the policy language

which is and remains "word mark"

To use it here is completely consistent with the rest of the policy, just as with TMCH Validation Provider

And I do not agree to smuggle into this language any reflection on the definition of "word mark"

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

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HJFo7JwmYH-McI1-clrVuZWRaKiflGsDnR0xqBvDqXw/edit

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.

+1 Ariel -- No need for report call-out here.

That makes sense to me Ariel for an 'approach' section

Thank you, Kathy

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

Thanks David. We will check for consistency

lost my audio

Thanks David and noted!

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.

back now

Do we need the second sentence?

Good point Paul

+1 Paul -- no need for prospective sentence 2.

Once GNSO Council approves, the process as between Council and Board kicks in. We don't have to rewrite that stuff.

Agree Paul - and that takes away the issues re CP.

in the GNSO ops it is ‘the Final Report is to be forwarded to the GNSO Council Chair to begin the GNSO Councildeliberation process.’

Let’s put period after for its consideration (if we want to retain sentence 2 at all)

page 74 https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-24oct19-en.pdf

Or consideration and potential adoption or approval (whatever the more accurate term is per the bylaws)

Just stop at approval

+1 Justine.

Agree with Phil there

good point, Phil

I meant the first "approval" :-). But OK with the second too.

Just bc its prior template doesn’t make it good

:)

submitted for Council deliberations ?

Thanks Mary. I think that does it. Much appreciated.

Sounds fine Mary thank you

seems ok to me about maintaining sequence

Should we add anything about IRT implementation if the Board approves?

@Phil, that probably won’t be necessary as an IRT isn’t mandatory.

It is up to the GNSO Council.

Needed, but up to Council.

OK

Hopefully all our implementation guidance will be used

@Phil, from the org perspective, any and all implementation guidance is always very helpful for explaining the actual recommendations!

@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.

Can Staff bring up URS #4 and #3?

Tx!

We did discuss it, and the way staff captured it is accurate, as I noted in my email

@Griffin: The language reflects the agreement of the WG.

No change.

My recollection is that we noted the language translation was into predominant language in the country of registrant

As of 13 October

That’s correct Kathy

Could we get url of this doc

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSFKsXW9Z3CfBODC_T_7kY_rCVo_pTkiWUH0cFG1Gac/edit#heading=h.iy7f8m2s666l

Thanks Ariel

To reiterate - the recommendations are consistent, and there were no new changes or language introduced by staff after the WG’s agreement.

All fine, thanks everyone.

@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”.

Per the discussion.

We will circulate the revised language.

We captured the suggestions Paul T made in chat.

I think we wanted designations rather than identifiers to avoid potential confusion with identifiers in the domain name and IP address sense

Staff, can we go back to the TMCH GI Recommendation?

It is on the screen.

@Phil: Correct — the changes are only on the contextual language.

“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...

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.

OK, let's take it to the list with the aim of resolving on Thursday

But yes we ought to circulate on list, not try and wordsmith this on the fly here

@All: Staff has the action item to circulate it to the list.

Nothing more to do.

Thank you Kathy, staff, and all – one Working session left, seems amazing.

thanks all

Let's all resolve that this is the greatest report ever :)

As it was we had already completed the agenda.

Thanks all

thanks all

Thanks all

+1 Kathy

Kathy +1

+1 Kathy

bye all