GNSO Council webinar on the RPM PDP WG Final Report - Shared screen with speaker view
I have to drop after 30 minutes, but am very familiar with the RPM Final REport
Noted, thanks Jeff
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
GNSO Council members: Please remember to set your chat to All Panelists and Attendees for all to be able read the exchanges
kudos to all involved in RPMs PDP
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.
a Chair and two vice chairs might be better approach (see PDP 3.0)
@Maxim Looking into that kind of question, yes. Would help us recommend models going forward.
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
@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
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?
Thanks everyone for the input.
@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.
@Mary - I know. But does it serve a useful purpose? I think it is more of a bug than a feature.
@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.
Could you provide an example where the definition of ‘word mark’ comes into play?
I am not really following this "word mark" question. Clarification appreciated.
Please remember to set your chat to All Panelists and Attendees for all to be able read the exchanges
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.
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.
Thank you for the clarifications all, very informative.
Most countries distinguish text marks only from text + design.
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.
Thank you John.
A lot to share... tx John!
also there was a collision reserved names
Can somebody please send the link to this slide deck?
Juan Manuel Rojas
Philip Corwin (Verisign)
happy we could finally bring this to a successful conclusion
We had a large group of very active members from across the GNSO and ACs. It was a huge effort.
Please also look out for a motion for the Council regarding a vote on these recommendations at your next meeting.
Great job all! And SubPro is following shortly having just ended our consensus ccall
Yes, a major achievement. Thanks John and all.
Bye for now
Juan Manuel Rojas
Kristian Ørmen (one.com)