Logo

GNSO Council webinar on the RPM PDP WG Final Report - Shared screen with speaker view
Jeff Neuman
33:45
I have to drop after 30 minutes, but am very familiar with the RPM Final REport
Nathalie Peregrine
35:09
Noted, thanks Jeff
Terri Agnew
35:12
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Terri Agnew
35:44
GNSO Council members: Please remember to set your chat to All Panelists and Attendees for all to be able read the exchanges
Maxim Alzoba
37:08
kudos to all involved in RPMs PDP
Mark Datysgeld
43:17
Eventually I would like to understand the perceived pros and cons of this 3 co-chair dynamic and how it worked in practice. I say this for the broader interest of the many reforms that we have been working on in terms of ICANN processes.
Maxim Alzoba
44:25
a Chair and two vice chairs might be better approach (see PDP 3.0)
Mark Datysgeld
45:13
@Maxim Looking into that kind of question, yes. Would help us recommend models going forward.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
46:06
Co-Chairs and a LT on toiipics worked JUST fine in SubPro in my very biased view so they dynamic of a Leadership Team fits in my view with the 3 Co Chairs used in RPM
Ariel Liang
46:29
@Mark - you may be interested in reading PDP 3.0 Improvement #2 outcome document here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-3-2-working-group-models-10feb20-en.pdf.pdf
Ariel Liang
46:48
See p.4
Kurt Pritz
46:49
John, what is your (or anyone’s) opinion? What is the specific purpose of the upcoming public comment period? I.e., what is left unsaid after all this time and other public comment periods? Does this final comment period serve a purpose other than checking a box? Conversely, does a redundant comment period raise unnecessary risks to adopting the new policy recommendations?
Mark Datysgeld
47:25
Thanks everyone for the input.
Mary Wong
47:48
@Kurt, if you are referring to the Public Comment period after Council approval, that is mandated by the Bylaws and is meant to inform the Board’s consideration.
Kurt Pritz
48:36
@Mary - I know. But does it serve a useful purpose? I think it is more of a bug than a feature.
Farell Folly
54:11
@kurtz, I would say that, in addition to be prescribed by the Bylaws, it serves the case when the Council does not approve all the recommendations and make amendements. Then a public comment is required/deemed useful I guess. Otherwise, it would be necessary anyway after the Board’s consideration, in order to allow the community to comment on the newly suggested amendments.
Kurt Pritz
01:20:32
Could you provide an example where the definition of ‘word mark’ comes into play?
Mark Datysgeld
01:20:59
I am not really following this "word mark" question. Clarification appreciated.
Terri Agnew
01:22:19
Please remember to set your chat to All Panelists and Attendees for all to be able read the exchanges
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:43
I urge Council members to read the Minority Statement. Kurt, it comes into play with a design+text marks, e.g, the Pixar "CARS" mark for the move (CARS in a design). Pixar could not get a trademark for its "cars" movie, but could get the design+text. Lots of discussion of this - and the problems it might raise - in the TMCH in the Minority Statement.
Mary Wong
01:22:51
The Working Group had extensive discussions over what comprises a “word mark”; for example, is a trademark that consists of stylized text a “word mark”; or what if there is a design or visual element also incorporated into the mark.
Mark Datysgeld
01:23:37
Thank you for the clarifications all, very informative.
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:40
Most countries distinguish text marks only from text + design.
Mary Wong
01:24:40
The remaining slides reproduce the actual text of all 35 recommendations, for the Council’s easy reference, following the first 14 slides that John presented, summarizing the types and scope of the recommendations developed by the Working Group.
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:38
+1
Osvaldo Novoa
01:25:58
Thank you John.
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:29
A lot to share... tx John!
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:25
also there was a collision reserved names
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:34
issue
Mark Datysgeld
01:27:46
Can somebody please send the link to this slide deck?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:29:01
Huge effort!
Juan Manuel Rojas
01:29:07
Thanks John!
Philip Corwin (Verisign)
01:29:30
happy we could finally bring this to a successful conclusion
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:33
We had a large group of very active members from across the GNSO and ACs. It was a huge effort.
Mary Wong
01:29:35
Please also look out for a motion for the Council regarding a vote on these recommendations at your next meeting.
Flip Petillion
01:29:37
thx John
Jeff Neuman
01:29:45
Great job all! And SubPro is following shortly having just ended our consensus ccall
Tom Dale
01:29:47
Yes, a major achievement. Thanks John and all.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:29:50
Bye for now
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:54
thanx all
Farell Folly
01:29:55
Hi all
Farell Folly
01:29:57
bye all
Juan Manuel Rojas
01:30:00
Bye everyone!
Kristian Ørmen (one.com)
01:30:03
Thank you