Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room
These are the proposals submitted related to TMCH charter questions https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/TMCH+Proposals
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
Greg does not appear to be on the call.
It looks like Greg has just joined
The current version is a revised proposal from Greg
And he has a redline version too
Ariel, is this the redline version, onscreen?
I believe so…but I do notice there is no redline in the redline version
I think it is the boldface text?
We are displaying the word version now, it should show redline
This is the redlined version — sorry for any confusion.
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
I don't think that there is a standard definition of "text marks".
All in favor of Banana!
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).
Thanks @Greg - staff is just cautious that, if/when we do another review, we have to revisit this discussion (text v word mark) again :)
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.
We have Rebecca’s latest language in the Zoom room.
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
Tx you to Rebecca and Claudio for a huge amount for work, discussion and editing!
small clarification re current practice
currently the AGB apparently *requires* databases to be nonexclusive; we should be clear about whether we want to change that
3.2.4 is needed
any mark that isn't part of the RPMs
at least TMCH-operated ancillary database--4.1 at least implies it.
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.
So it’s clear that the three categories before it are the ones that qualify for mandatory Sunrise and Claims.
@ Greg - for instance, a "business name" registration from a city for TLD owed by the city (e.g., .NYC)
3.2.4 is currently in the AGB. The language on screen appears to be carefully discussed, drafted and negotiated modifications.
@Claudio, that is correct.
If 3.2.4 can be divorced from the other sections, that would be a big help in clarifying this.
no it should be part of the same list
3.2.4 could certainly be moved to 3.6 as, say, 3.6.1
7.1 & 7.2 are very clear
still on mute
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.
75 as of Feb 2017.
Michael R. Graham
Apologies for joining late
And they had no way of deciding which of the 75 are, or are not, considered GIs under specific laws.
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.
If we can not draft prcise wording to define it how can we fairly criticise Deloitte?
@Mary, to be clear, they definitely had a way of deciding. We just have no idea what that was.
Any support for a move to 3.6 (a new .1)?
@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.
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
But they could definitely tell us which ones got admitted: they know
Michael, a massive number of domains have been registered abusively, and miniscule number of records have come in under 3.2.3
Greg, in my proposal ancillary services are clearly separate so I think it addresses your point on this.
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)
Brian I agree with you
I'm happy to send out a revision with 3.2.4 moved to 3.6 for greater clarity
Tx you, Claudio!
claudio the database structure doesn't matter it's what flow out into the RPMS, 7.1 & 7.2 are very clear
This is the document of all TMCH charter questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PG_-rjslTTcUYrMNpuwo5_YWvSu40cc3/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
Paul, I believe the AGB states that 3.2.4 are eligible for optional registry services
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).
sorry why is that relevant to RPMs?
Maxim is an apology
No Maxim is not on the call
I have to drop for a meeting.
@Kathy: Can you send this to the list?
That is, the original email from Maxim?
Right, but for the record, it should be on the list
But I think we should provide the guidance...
There are SLAs, yes.
As others have provided proposals to the list, it would be helpful if Maxim would also do so.
Shall we leave the option open for Maxim to submit?
@Kathy, is Maxim suggesting that the technical infrastructure of the TMCH be looked at? That may involve going back through the IAG deliberations.
Paul, here is the text that I am referring to:
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.
page down document?
We aren’t able to move the document at this moment. Sorry!
There was no specific proposal for Q13
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.
David McAuley (Verisign)
David McAuley (Verisign)
now we can
Sorry technology is working in a strange way today
We went around this a lot last week, don't want to be repetitive.
Thanks Phil - would be happy to get community feedback.
@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.
Do we have time to come back again?
Switching to URS Individual Proposals
as our current topic.
Staff - can you post our letter to the WG on this matter?
@Kathy: I think Brian has covered what was in the letter. We don’t have it handy to bring it up quickly.
And Phil also is addressing it.
This is the link to the email
Michael, let me know if you want to work on an alternative solution?
The survey would be preliminary to a discussion
David McAuley (Verisign)
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.
@Rebecca: The survey would not replace discussion. That would still take place. Just a way to help guide discussion.
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
Then the wrong thing to do is dump them without discussion
@Rebecca: Nothing would be dumped as a result of the survey. It would not be a filter.
Nothing would happen without discussion.
Rebecca -- no one is proposing to "dump them" without further discussion
The survey would inform further discussion, not substitute for it
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)
You do not have consensus to do this. It’s completely illegitimate.
That is, the survey is intended to substitute for WG discussion
@Rebecca: that’s not the intent of the survey.
Some of them are not very sensible
Rebecca --once again, the survey is NOT intended to substitute for WG discussion
@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
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.
+1 Paul T.
I have a hard stop and have to leave. Bye all. I prefer to bump it.
I think the survey is a good idea
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.
Next week it is then
David McAuley (Verisign)
Good bye all