Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
26:21
Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms, (RPMs) and all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 18:00 UTC.
Gerald M. Levine
29:46
I don’t know whether this qualifies as a change in status, but Renee has promoted me to the Panel Roster.
ariel.liang
29:55
Deliberations - TMCH: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-TH7WopFauhEU1Z0zCjQp26s3S8d6J3SnLLOnTfuTrM/edit#
David McAuley (Verisign)
30:26
Just a syntactical suggestion
Ariel Liang
34:00
TMCH Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fh6KnBvqH78Pmo7qUBtR3JyIIvUifJ-8hzX9dcJruuA/edit#
Julie Hedlund
34:06
Starting with Proposal #2
Julie Hedlund
34:44
and #3
Mary Wong
36:42
Just a reminder that the text of the proposals and rationale is text that was submitted, i.e. no staff edits or commentary. Staff only added contextual language for Deliberations and Question for Public Comment.
Susan Payne
38:10
when we finish #2 and #3 could we go back to Mary's edit at the end of #1 please? I have a minor suggestion - that we add "materials" after "education"
David McAuley (Verisign)
40:15
that makes sense Susan
Susan Payne
43:07
hand up on 2 and 3
Philip Corwin
44:04
In regard to the ongoing review, I understand that the WG should be reviewing and, if it feels necessary or appropriate, revising staff-drafted language on Deliberations and Question for Public Comment. But do we need to review the explanation provided by a proposal's proponent? We have little to no latitude to revise such language.
Mary Wong
45:38
@Phil, yes. To address Susan’s concern, perhaps we can add a specific paragraph at the top of this section, highlighting the fact that while the WG agreed to put the individual proposals and their rationale (as submitted) out for input, the WG has not agreed on either the accuracy of or the views expressed in the proposals.
Philip Corwin
46:04
Good suggestion, Mary
Susan Payne
47:52
thanks, that sounds good Julie
Susan Payne
48:39
@Phil, I think it was clear that I wasn't suggesting we amend the proponents rationale
Paul Tattersfield
51:15
Could we attibute the proposals more clearly as "the propnents rationale"
Philip Corwin
51:29
@Susan--didn't think you were
Susan Payne
51:49
@Phil, super - wasn't sure
David McAuley (Verisign)
51:57
I am also in zoom
Paul Tattersfield
59:18
nice guidance
Claudio DiGangi
59:53
Julie can you add the following text on proposal #2: 1.4 Geographical Indications and Appellations of Origin may be recorded in the TMCH as per the existing rules outlined in Section 3.6 of the Applicant Guidebook, which states: "Data supporting entry into the Clearinghouse of marks that constitute intellectual property of types other than those set forth in sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 above shall be determined by the registry operator and the Clearinghouse based on the services any given registry operator chooses to provide."
Claudio DiGangi
01:00:05
i need to dial in
Claudio DiGangi
01:00:54
yes, 9176768208
Claudio DiGangi
01:01:00
that's fine if we are not making changes
Julie Hedlund
01:01:31
Confirming that per the procedures the proposals are closed to edits, even by the proponents.
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:44
+1, @Phil
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:01:48
I agree with Phil - this might be useful as a public comment
Mary Wong
01:01:56
Proponents can, of course, submit a public comment that explains or clarifies their proposals.
Julie Bisland
01:01:57
Claudio has audio now
Julie Hedlund
01:03:21
Perhaps as a footnote in the context/deliberations?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:03:22
contextual footnote sounds ok but not a change to proposal, IMO
Claudio DiGangi
01:04:44
footnote is good
Paul Tattersfield
01:05:46
Agree with Kathy
Claudio DiGangi
01:07:21
sorry not sure why i can't unmute
Julie Hedlund
01:07:50
We would include just the text
Claudio DiGangi
01:07:55
yes, the idea was just to clarify for the community, so Susan's suggestion to add footnote is great (from my perspective)
Paul Tattersfield
01:08:38
shoulsn't be there really can we just just use a link
Paul Tattersfield
01:09:00
^^^^
Claudio DiGangi
01:09:09
thanks Susan, Kathy, all!
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:24
there were periods of unavailability
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:38
dates were provided during the discussion
Julie Hedlund
01:12:44
We do note that WG member expressed concerns about operational considerations — but we didn’t have data.
Julie Hedlund
01:13:05
There is no data we can cite
Julie Hedlund
01:13:17
That’s why we aren’t specific
Mary Wong
01:13:58
Staff hand up.
Julie Hedlund
01:14:01
Some important points: 1. There was no data the WG verified. 2. The WG did not try to obtain more data that could show this is a problem for more than one or two registries.
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:09
old
Claudio DiGangi
01:17:52
are able to suggest text to address Marie's comment?
Claudio DiGangi
01:17:55
we
Susan Payne
01:19:27
that's true Phil
Michael R. Graham
01:19:34
I do think that much of the discussion of having a searchable database was to enable tracking of information regarding the operation of the TMCH and other RPMs.
Claudio DiGangi
01:19:51
if yes, suggest: "may be used to flag trademarks that may otherwise be subject to challenge under TMCH procedures"
Jason Schaeffer
01:21:27
Yes, there was significant divergence and searchability and transparency was a major issue.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:21:49
Congratulations Michael
Griffin Barnett
01:21:55
Can we get your baby's SOI please?
Griffin Barnett
01:22:01
JK - congrats Michael, good luck
Julie Hedlund
01:22:10
added per Phil
Claudio DiGangi
01:22:13
a future IP member?
Philip Corwin
01:22:36
Congratulations Michael.
Claudio DiGangi
01:22:40
jk, congrats
Michael Karanicolas
01:22:52
Thanks all. Benjamin Adam Karanicolas has no conflicts (as far as I know)
Julie Hedlund
01:23:15
hand up
Susan Payne
01:23:26
@Michael, what about we just say "included" rather than "validated"?
Michael Karanicolas
01:23:48
Thats fine with me Susan, thanks
Claudio DiGangi
01:24:07
good suggestion Susan
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:24:24
I think Susan and Michael just agreed a solution to this issue
Julie Hedlund
01:24:57
Thanks all!
Philip Corwin
01:25:16
Leave it with those 2 changes. The community will add all the other points pro and con.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:26:15
I agree with Susan on this point. We could say ‘training’ instead of ‘education’ but as to the latter it takes responsibility by two parties – the educator and the student – we cannot provide for such an outcome as an education. Let’s make materials or training available and hope for the best.
Paul Tattersfield
01:26:38
has a different meaning
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:27:05
not a big point here either
Susan Payne
01:27:26
ok - withdrawn then
Ariel Liang
01:28:24
URS Individual Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk79niPOuURI8L5U/edit#heading=h.yppfh0381emo
Susan Payne
01:28:47
OK, thanks everyone, I need to leave the call now. See you next week
Claudio DiGangi
01:29:52
take care susan
Ariel Liang
01:30:19
Note the highlighted text is the same as that in TMCH Individual Proposals
Ariel Liang
01:31:20
correct
Ariel Liang
01:31:23
Defer discussion on this
Ariel Liang
01:32:55
The proposal numbers stay true to their originally assigned numbers
Julie Hedlund
01:33:33
Thanks for that clarification @Ariel
Ariel Liang
01:34:16
Rationale un edited
Ariel Liang
01:34:22
taken straight from the original proposals
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:26
@Kathy, please check e-mail, about #12 , dates of unavailability and for one of the periods text from ICANN with explanation and issue
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:48
cases should be requested from ICANN GDD
Kathy Kleiman
01:35:08
Do we have email?
Kathy Kleiman
01:35:48
Sorry- Mazim what email? Did you send it to the full WG?
Maxim Alzoba
01:35:56
to full
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:15
will re-check the outbox
Kathy Kleiman
01:36:17
Also, has the link to the full document on screen been posted to chat?
Julie Hedlund
01:36:56
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk79niPOuURI8L5U/edit#heading=h.yppfh0381emo
Maxim Alzoba
01:37:51
resent it
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:41:09
Received Maxim's mail here
Claudio DiGangi
01:41:50
looks good
Paul Tattersfield
01:44:13
3 is way too low rather than too low
Ariel Liang
01:45:48
Maxim was taxiing about the TMCH one (IBM issues)
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:55
it was about availability tmch
Ariel Liang
01:45:56
*talking
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:37
Could Staff take a close look at Maxim's email? It is something he has shared in the past...
Ariel Liang
01:47:49
We have noted it in the TMCH doc
Paul Tattersfield
01:47:52
The declarations are not consistent some are just “to publish in the Initial Report” some are “to publish in the Initial report to seek public comment”
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:54
Tx!!
Ariel Liang
01:48:26
Thanks Paul. We will check the consistency of the phrase
Paul Tattersfield
01:48:54
I perfer the longer
Ariel Liang
01:49:30
Noted
Ariel Liang
01:50:56
Hand up
Mary Wong
01:51:44
Apologies, I will have to drop for another call.
Philip Corwin
01:51:44
Won't #14 be listed in the annex/appendix of the IR?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:51:51
I believe that all proposals – those carried forward in IR and those not - are included in the summary as linked in footnote #1 on page 1
Ariel Liang
01:52:15
Yes
Ariel Liang
01:52:21
All proposals are included in the appendix
Julie Hedlund
01:52:22
2-minutes left
Claudio DiGangi
01:52:32
agree remove
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:37
please leave bit about concerns (for example a person changes name and ID, and it is not track able)
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:53:46
good solution
Griffin Barnett
01:54:02
Hi all, I have to drop to get ready for another meeting... thank you
Greg Shatan
01:54:06
I have a hard stop. Bye all.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:54:09
Thanks Kathy and staff and all
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:14
thanks all
Cyntia King
01:54:23
Thanks Kathy! And Staff!
Ariel Liang
01:54:24
Thanks everyone
Paul Tattersfield
01:54:25
thnaks all bye
Zak Muscovitch
01:54:26
Thank you staff and Kathy and everyone