
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.

29:46
I don’t know whether this qualifies as a change in status, but Renee has promoted me to the Panel Roster.

29:55
Deliberations - TMCH: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-TH7WopFauhEU1Z0zCjQp26s3S8d6J3SnLLOnTfuTrM/edit#

30:26
Just a syntactical suggestion

34:00
TMCH Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fh6KnBvqH78Pmo7qUBtR3JyIIvUifJ-8hzX9dcJruuA/edit#

34:06
Starting with Proposal #2

34:44
and #3

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.

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"

40:15
that makes sense Susan

43:07
hand up on 2 and 3

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.

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.

46:04
Good suggestion, Mary

47:52
thanks, that sounds good Julie

48:39
@Phil, I think it was clear that I wasn't suggesting we amend the proponents rationale

51:15
Could we attibute the proposals more clearly as "the propnents rationale"

51:29
@Susan--didn't think you were

51:49
@Phil, super - wasn't sure

51:57
I am also in zoom

59:18
nice guidance

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."

01:00:05
i need to dial in

01:00:54
yes, 9176768208

01:01:00
that's fine if we are not making changes

01:01:31
Confirming that per the procedures the proposals are closed to edits, even by the proponents.

01:01:44
+1, @Phil

01:01:48
I agree with Phil - this might be useful as a public comment

01:01:56
Proponents can, of course, submit a public comment that explains or clarifies their proposals.

01:01:57
Claudio has audio now

01:03:21
Perhaps as a footnote in the context/deliberations?

01:03:22
contextual footnote sounds ok but not a change to proposal, IMO

01:04:44
footnote is good

01:05:46
Agree with Kathy

01:07:21
sorry not sure why i can't unmute

01:07:50
We would include just the text

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)

01:08:38
shoulsn't be there really can we just just use a link

01:09:00
^^^^

01:09:09
thanks Susan, Kathy, all!

01:11:24
there were periods of unavailability

01:11:38
dates were provided during the discussion

01:12:44
We do note that WG member expressed concerns about operational considerations — but we didn’t have data.

01:13:05
There is no data we can cite

01:13:17
That’s why we aren’t specific

01:13:58
Staff hand up.

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.

01:14:09
old

01:17:52
are able to suggest text to address Marie's comment?

01:17:55
we

01:19:27
that's true Phil

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.

01:19:51
if yes, suggest: "may be used to flag trademarks that may otherwise be subject to challenge under TMCH procedures"

01:21:27
Yes, there was significant divergence and searchability and transparency was a major issue.

01:21:49
Congratulations Michael

01:21:55
Can we get your baby's SOI please?

01:22:01
JK - congrats Michael, good luck

01:22:10
added per Phil

01:22:13
a future IP member?

01:22:36
Congratulations Michael.

01:22:40
jk, congrats

01:22:52
Thanks all. Benjamin Adam Karanicolas has no conflicts (as far as I know)

01:23:15
hand up

01:23:26
@Michael, what about we just say "included" rather than "validated"?

01:23:48
Thats fine with me Susan, thanks

01:24:07
good suggestion Susan

01:24:24
I think Susan and Michael just agreed a solution to this issue

01:24:57
Thanks all!

01:25:16
Leave it with those 2 changes. The community will add all the other points pro and con.

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.

01:26:38
has a different meaning

01:27:05
not a big point here either

01:27:26
ok - withdrawn then

01:28:24
URS Individual Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk79niPOuURI8L5U/edit#heading=h.yppfh0381emo

01:28:47
OK, thanks everyone, I need to leave the call now. See you next week

01:29:52
take care susan

01:30:19
Note the highlighted text is the same as that in TMCH Individual Proposals

01:31:20
correct

01:31:23
Defer discussion on this

01:32:55
The proposal numbers stay true to their originally assigned numbers

01:33:33
Thanks for that clarification @Ariel

01:34:16
Rationale un edited

01:34:22
taken straight from the original proposals

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

01:34:48
cases should be requested from ICANN GDD

01:35:08
Do we have email?

01:35:48
Sorry- Mazim what email? Did you send it to the full WG?

01:35:56
to full

01:36:15
will re-check the outbox

01:36:17
Also, has the link to the full document on screen been posted to chat?

01:36:56
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk79niPOuURI8L5U/edit#heading=h.yppfh0381emo

01:37:51
resent it

01:41:09
Received Maxim's mail here

01:41:50
looks good

01:44:13
3 is way too low rather than too low

01:45:48
Maxim was taxiing about the TMCH one (IBM issues)

01:45:55
it was about availability tmch

01:45:56
*talking

01:47:37
Could Staff take a close look at Maxim's email? It is something he has shared in the past...

01:47:49
We have noted it in the TMCH doc

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”

01:47:54
Tx!!

01:48:26
Thanks Paul. We will check the consistency of the phrase

01:48:54
I perfer the longer

01:49:30
Noted

01:50:56
Hand up

01:51:44
Apologies, I will have to drop for another call.

01:51:44
Won't #14 be listed in the annex/appendix of the IR?

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

01:52:15
Yes

01:52:21
All proposals are included in the appendix

01:52:22
2-minutes left

01:52:32
agree remove

01:53:37
please leave bit about concerns (for example a person changes name and ID, and it is not track able)

01:53:46
good solution

01:54:02
Hi all, I have to drop to get ready for another meeting... thank you

01:54:06
I have a hard stop. Bye all.

01:54:09
Thanks Kathy and staff and all

01:54:14
thanks all

01:54:23
Thanks Kathy! And Staff!

01:54:24
Thanks everyone

01:54:25
thnaks all bye

01:54:26
Thank you staff and Kathy and everyone