Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room
Ariel Liang
25:22
These are the proposals submitted related to TMCH charter questions https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/TMCH+Proposals
Ariel Liang
26:47
Greg’s proposal: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Clean%20Version%20of%20Revised%20Q7%20Proposal%20Submitted%20by%20Greg%20Shatan.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1570019781000&api=v2
julie.hedlund
27:15
Greg does not appear to be on the call.
Andrea Glandon
29:19
It looks like Greg has just joined
Ariel Liang
29:20
The current version is a revised proposal from Greg
Ariel Liang
29:27
And he has a redline version too
JBB
31:10
Ariel, is this the redline version, onscreen?
Ariel Liang
31:39
I believe so…but I do notice there is no redline in the redline version
julie.hedlund
32:57
I think it is the boldface text?
Ariel Liang
33:36
We are displaying the word version now, it should show redline
julie.hedlund
34:30
This is the redlined version — sorry for any confusion.
Ariel Liang
34:50
This is the link to the redline version in word: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Comparison%20of%20Revised%20Proposal%20to%20Original%20Proposal.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1570727625020&api=v2
Cyntia King
38:18
Agree phil
John McElwaine
39:19
I don't think that there is a standard definition of "text marks".
Kathy Kleiman
40:04
All in favor of Banana!
Mary Wong
41:28
Staff will check, but IIRC the original AGB wording was “text mark” but that got changed to “word mark” (don’t quote me just yet, I will check).
Mary Wong
48:03
Thanks @Greg - staff is just cautious that, if/when we do another review, we have to revisit this discussion (text v word mark) again :)
Greg Shatan
49:44
I wouldn’t rely on either “text mark” or “word mark” to have a well understood “term of art” meaning, especially globally. So if we stick with the current term, the focus is squarely on the definitional issue.
julie.hedlund
49:44
We have Rebecca’s latest language in the Zoom room.
Ariel Liang
50:08
This is the latest from Rebecca for Q8: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/109482780/Rebecca%20Tushnet%20Proposal%20-%20Q8%20-%2010%20Oct%202019.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1570726064000&api=v2
Kathy Kleiman
54:58
Tx you to Rebecca and Claudio for a huge amount for work, discussion and editing!
Rebecca Tushnet
56:46
small clarification re current practice
Rebecca Tushnet
57:18
currently the AGB apparently *requires* databases to be nonexclusive; we should be clear about whether we want to change that
Paul Tattersfield
58:03
3.2.4 is needed
Paul Tattersfield
58:32
any mark that isn't part of the RPMs
Rebecca Tushnet
58:47
at least TMCH-operated ancillary database--4.1 at least implies it.
Mary Wong
59:06
It seems as though the basic change ought to be simply NOT including 3.2.4 in the chronological listing; but to explain what it includes elsewhere.
Mary Wong
59:30
So it’s clear that the three categories before it are the ones that qualify for mandatory Sunrise and Claims.
John McElwaine
59:33
@ Greg - for instance, a "business name" registration from a city for TLD owed by the city (e.g., .NYC)
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:56
3.2.4 is currently in the AGB. The language on screen appears to be carefully discussed, drafted and negotiated modifications.
Mary Wong
01:03:34
@Claudio, that is correct.
Paul Tattersfield
01:04:02
Exactly claudio
Greg Shatan
01:04:29
If 3.2.4 can be divorced from the other sections, that would be a big help in clarifying this.
Paul Tattersfield
01:04:51
no it should be part of the same list
Rebecca Tushnet
01:05:10
3.2.4 could certainly be moved to 3.6 as, say, 3.6.1
Paul Tattersfield
01:05:17
7.1 & 7.2 are very clear
Kathy Kleiman
01:05:43
still on mute
Mary Wong
01:05:44
Right, and maintain the distinction between marks that enter the TMCH for mandatory Sunrise and Claims, and marks that enter the TMCH for other registry-voluntary services.
Mary Wong
01:08:59
75 as of Feb 2017.
Michael R. Graham
01:09:12
Apologies for joining late
Mary Wong
01:09:20
And they had no way of deciding which of the 75 are, or are not, considered GIs under specific laws.
Michael Karanicolas
01:11:14
The idea that this isn’t worth paying attention to because it represents a small % of cases is so silly. By that rationale - what % of global domains have ever been used for cybersquatting? Perhaps the entire trademark protection structure should be dismantled, on that thinking.
Paul Tattersfield
01:12:14
If we can not draft prcise wording to define it how can we fairly criticise Deloitte?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:12:27
@Mary, to be clear, they definitely had a way of deciding. We just have no idea what that was.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:13:19
Any support for a move to 3.6 (a new .1)?
Mary Wong
01:13:25
@Rebecca, they said they could not, as to do so could have violated the fundamental principle that the TMCH Provider was not to engage in substantive analysis or examination of the mark submitted.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:13:53
No, my point is that we don't know how they decided something was or was not a "mark" or whether GIs were involved because we don't have the information
Rebecca Tushnet
01:14:17
But they could definitely tell us which ones got admitted: they know
claudio
01:14:22
Michael, a massive number of domains have been registered abusively, and miniscule number of records have come in under 3.2.3
claudio
01:15:16
Greg, in my proposal ancillary services are clearly separate so I think it addresses your point on this.
claudio
01:16:13
Kathy, I agree with you and thanks, Just noting 3.2.4 currently goes into the main database (even those records are for optional services)
claudio
01:16:27
Brian I agree with you
Rebecca Tushnet
01:16:35
I'm happy to send out a revision with 3.2.4 moved to 3.6 for greater clarity
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:35
Tx you, Claudio!
Paul Tattersfield
01:16:58
claudio the database structure doesn't matter it's what flow out into the RPMS, 7.1 & 7.2 are very clear
Ariel Liang
01:17:30
This is the document of all TMCH charter questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PG_-rjslTTcUYrMNpuwo5_YWvSu40cc3/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
claudio
01:17:40
Paul, I believe the AGB states that 3.2.4 are eligible for optional registry services
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:16
From Maxim: I came to the conclusion that another option is for the singleTMCH operator to have a better design of the systemwhich effectively creates two virtual TMCH operators (with the synchronizationand proper redundancy).
Paul Tattersfield
01:18:20
sorry why is that relevant to RPMs?
Andrea Glandon
01:18:47
Maxim is an apology
julie.hedlund
01:18:51
No Maxim is not on the call
John McElwaine
01:19:05
I have to drop for a meeting.
julie.hedlund
01:19:55
@Kathy: Can you send this to the list?
julie.hedlund
01:20:25
That is, the original email from Maxim?
julie.hedlund
01:20:37
Right, but for the record, it should be on the list
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:10
But I think we should provide the guidance...
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:13
to implementation.
Mary Wong
01:21:16
There are SLAs, yes.
julie.hedlund
01:21:32
As others have provided proposals to the list, it would be helpful if Maxim would also do so.
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:16
Shall we leave the option open for Maxim to submit?
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:34
new hand
Mary Wong
01:22:49
@Kathy, is Maxim suggesting that the technical infrastructure of the TMCH be looked at? That may involve going back through the IAG deliberations.
claudio
01:24:27
Paul, here is the text that I am referring to:
claudio
01:24:30
3.6 Data supporting entry into the Clearinghouse of marks that constitute intellectualproperty of types other than those set forth in sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 above shall bedetermined by the registry operator and the Clearinghouse based on the services anygiven registry operator chooses to provide.
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:25
page down document?
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:47
on screen?
julie.hedlund
01:27:04
We aren’t able to move the document at this moment. Sorry!
julie.hedlund
01:27:08
Technical glitch.
julie.hedlund
01:28:49
There was no specific proposal for Q13
Marie Pattullo
01:32:40
I went back to check this with my members. They still oppose it being open as their choice of what TMs to put/not out into the TMCH is part of their commercial and/or enforcement strategy.
Marie Pattullo
01:33:02
*not put
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:33:26
on mute?
ariel.liang
01:33:58
Technical glitch
Marie Pattullo
01:34:03
:-))
Marie Pattullo
01:34:11
Yep.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:34:12
now we can
ariel.liang
01:34:55
Sorry technology is working in a strange way today
Marie Pattullo
01:35:14
We went around this a lot last week, don't want to be repetitive.
Marie Pattullo
01:38:56
Thanks Phil - would be happy to get community feedback.
Marie Pattullo
01:39:59
+1 Greg.
Scott Austin
01:40:26
+1 Greg
Philip Corwin
01:40:41
@Marie--thanks. Perhaps with that feedback we can get some consensus for something on this topic, and if not we have let everyone have their say.
Kathy Kleiman
01:41:30
Do we have time to come back again?
Kathy Kleiman
01:41:58
Switching to URS Individual Proposals
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:07
as our current topic.
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:28
Staff - can you post our letter to the WG on this matter?
julie.hedlund
01:43:18
@Kathy: I think Brian has covered what was in the letter. We don’t have it handy to bring it up quickly.
julie.hedlund
01:43:26
And Phil also is addressing it.
ariel.liang
01:43:28
This is the link to the email
ariel.liang
01:43:30
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-October/003931.html
julie.hedlund
01:43:37
Thanks Ariel!
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:12
Tx Ariel!
ariel.liang
01:44:24
No problem
claudio
01:44:38
Michael, let me know if you want to work on an alternative solution?
Philip Corwin
01:46:54
The survey would be preliminary to a discussion
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:47:27
I respect what Rebecca says but like the survey idea as a pragmatic and sensible way to get to a point where we can present the community with a report that they would be likely to engage in.
julie.hedlund
01:47:35
@Rebecca: The survey would not replace discussion. That would still take place. Just a way to help guide discussion.
Philip Corwin
01:47:53
The average time we spent discussing each of these individual proposals in the three meetings they came up was 13 minutes -- none received a full vetting
Rebecca Tushnet
01:48:12
Then the wrong thing to do is dump them without discussion
julie.hedlund
01:48:49
@Rebecca: Nothing would be dumped as a result of the survey. It would not be a filter.
julie.hedlund
01:48:58
Nothing would happen without discussion.
Philip Corwin
01:49:01
Rebecca -- no one is proposing to "dump them" without further discussion
Philip Corwin
01:49:23
The survey would inform further discussion, not substitute for it
Rebecca Tushnet
01:49:29
But the survey results are intended to get rid of them without discussion on which ones (other than presumably among the co chairs as they decide what has enough to go forward)
Michael Karanicolas
01:49:33
You do not have consensus to do this. It’s completely illegitimate.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:49:39
That is, the survey is intended to substitute for WG discussion
julie.hedlund
01:49:52
@Rebecca: that’s not the intent of the survey.
Paul Tattersfield
01:50:16
Some of them are not very sensible
Philip Corwin
01:50:28
Rebecca --once again, the survey is NOT intended to substitute for WG discussion
claudio
01:50:34
@Michael, I am making the suggestion because if we don't reach consensus within the WG on your proposal, the status quo will remain in place. So I am expressing willingness to try to address your underlying concerns. Hope that is helpful
ariel.liang
01:50:37
As noted in the disclaimer: * The purpose of this survey is to "take the temperature of the room" and provide a snapshot of what URS individual proposals that the RPM Working Group membership believes may be useful to publish for public comment.* This survey is not a formal vote. The results of the survey will not determine which proposals get included in the Initial Report, but will help inform the Working Group's decision making.
Greg Shatan
01:50:53
+1 Paul T.
Kathy Kleiman
01:50:55
Next week?
Kathy Kleiman
01:51:03
??
Greg Shatan
01:51:10
I have a hard stop and have to leave. Bye all. I prefer to bump it.
claudio
01:51:13
I think the survey is a good idea
Rebecca Tushnet
01:51:22
The WG made a decision, though. What is the standard for revisiting the decision? If it is that there is a strong feeling on one side … that will open a lot up.
Philip Corwin
01:51:48
Next week it is then
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:51:52
Good bye all
Paul Tattersfield
01:51:55
bye all