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.

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

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

Just a syntactical suggestion

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

Starting with Proposal #2

and #3

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.

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"

that makes sense Susan

hand up on 2 and 3

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.

@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.

Good suggestion, Mary

thanks, that sounds good Julie

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

Could we attibute the proposals more clearly as "the propnents rationale"

@Susan--didn't think you were

@Phil, super - wasn't sure

I am also in zoom

nice guidance

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."

i need to dial in

yes, 9176768208

that's fine if we are not making changes

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

+1, @Phil

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

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

Claudio has audio now

Perhaps as a footnote in the context/deliberations?

contextual footnote sounds ok but not a change to proposal, IMO

footnote is good

Agree with Kathy

sorry not sure why i can't unmute

We would include just the text

yes, the idea was just to clarify for the community, so Susan's suggestion to add footnote is great (from my perspective)

shoulsn't be there really can we just just use a link

^^^^

thanks Susan, Kathy, all!

there were periods of unavailability

dates were provided during the discussion

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

There is no data we can cite

That’s why we aren’t specific

Staff hand up.

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.

old

are able to suggest text to address Marie's comment?

we

that's true Phil

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.

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

Yes, there was significant divergence and searchability and transparency was a major issue.

Congratulations Michael

Can we get your baby's SOI please?

JK - congrats Michael, good luck

added per Phil

a future IP member?

Congratulations Michael.

jk, congrats

Thanks all. Benjamin Adam Karanicolas has no conflicts (as far as I know)

hand up

@Michael, what about we just say "included" rather than "validated"?

Thats fine with me Susan, thanks

good suggestion Susan

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

Thanks all!

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

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.

has a different meaning

not a big point here either

ok - withdrawn then

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

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

take care susan

Note the highlighted text is the same as that in TMCH Individual Proposals

correct

Defer discussion on this

The proposal numbers stay true to their originally assigned numbers

Thanks for that clarification @Ariel

Rationale un edited

taken straight from the original proposals

@Kathy, please check e-mail, about #12 , dates of unavailability and for one of the periods text from ICANN with explanation and issue

cases should be requested from ICANN GDD

Do we have email?

Sorry- Mazim what email? Did you send it to the full WG?

to full

will re-check the outbox

Also, has the link to the full document on screen been posted to chat?

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

resent it

Received Maxim's mail here

looks good

3 is way too low rather than too low

Maxim was taxiing about the TMCH one (IBM issues)

it was about availability tmch

*talking

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

We have noted it in the TMCH doc

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”

Tx!!

Thanks Paul. We will check the consistency of the phrase

I perfer the longer

Noted

Hand up

Apologies, I will have to drop for another call.

Won't #14 be listed in the annex/appendix of the IR?

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

Yes

All proposals are included in the appendix

2-minutes left

agree remove

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

good solution

Hi all, I have to drop to get ready for another meeting... thank you

I have a hard stop. Bye all.

Thanks Kathy and staff and all

thanks all

Thanks Kathy! And Staff!

Thanks everyone

thnaks all bye

Thank you staff and Kathy and everyone