- Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 - lists.icann.org

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Digest, Vol 6, Issue 4
by Karen Bernstein Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

Hi Folks, For tomorrow’s meeting on WT3, I’d like to share with you my experience with the string confusion contention set I was involved with. I represented the Government of Montenegro (which provides the .Me ccTLD) against Google’s proposed gTLD for .Meme in a string confusion contention set. A clueless panelist was appointed who was an admiralty lawyer from British Columbia. Very obscure. He also made his own conclusions that if the proposed gTLD were to be delegated it would not be confusing because he “thought so,” despite reputable external evidence that there might be collision problems and customer confusion. Should my client have to hire a linguist to prove the point? Apparently, ICANN’s linguists didn’t see a problem with it. Perhaps we can talk about whether it makes sense to include an ICANN-appointed panelist for future string confusion contentions. Looking forward to the call tomorrow! Very truly yours, Karen J. Bernstein Bernstein IP 200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10166 Tel: (212) 339-9955 Fax: (212) 682-0278 E-Mail: kjb(a)bernsteinip.com Web: www.bernsteinip.com Skype: K.Bernsteinlaw This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please forward the email back and delete all copies of the message and attachments. > On Feb 17, 2017, at 4:34 PM, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-request(a)icann.org wrote: > > Send Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list submissions to > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-request(a)icann.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-owner(a)icann.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Work Track 3: Agenda for 21Feb17 @20:00 UTC (Karen Day) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:34:27 +0000 > From: Karen Day <Karen.Day(a)sas.com> > To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Work Track 3: Agenda for 21Feb17 @20:00 > UTC > Message-ID: <681f95e2119e424fa8c2b371f4dd8b6f(a)MERCMBX34D.na.SAS.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Everyone, > > Hope you have all had a good week and that those of you who attended NCPH Intersessional had safe travels ?there and back again?. > > We will have our next WT3 call this coming Tuesday, Feb 21st at 20:00 UTC. The main focus of our time this week will be Confusing Similarity Objections and String Similarity Evaluations as these two topics are quite often intermingled. I have attached the agenda here for your review. > > In addition to the applicable sections of the Final Issue Report and AGB shown in the agenda, here are a few more links to some background documents you may wish to review prior to the call. > > ? https://www.icann.org/public-comments/sco-framework-principles-2014-02-11-en > > ? http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr/proposed-sco-framework-prin… > > ? https://www.icann.org/news/public-comment/report-comments-sco-framework-pri… > However, before we jump into these topics, we will take a few minutes to review what we have so far for our CC2 questions. We are going to need to finalize the WT3 specific questions so that they may be formally presented to the plenary session of the PDP on 27th. To date we have had virtually no input on these questions from the WT3 membership. Robin is taking a final pass over what leadership and staff have pulled together thus far, but please do take time to review and comment on them this week. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH… > > I look forward to talking with you all on the 21st. > > Have a great weekend, > Karen > ____________________________ > Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP > Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager > Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ? Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ? karen.day(a)sas.com > SAS Institute Inc.? SAS Campus Drive ? Cary, NC 27513 USA > www.sas.com > > [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert] > >

3 3

Work Track 3: Agenda for 21Feb17 @20:00 UTC
by Karen Day Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

Hi Everyone, Hope you have all had a good week and that those of you who attended NCPH Intersessional had safe travels “there and back again”. We will have our next WT3 call this coming Tuesday, Feb 21st at 20:00 UTC. The main focus of our time this week will be Confusing Similarity Objections and String Similarity Evaluations as these two topics are quite often intermingled. I have attached the agenda here for your review. In addition to the applicable sections of the Final Issue Report and AGB shown in the agenda, here are a few more links to some background documents you may wish to review prior to the call. · https://www.icann.org/public-comments/sco-framework-principles-2014-02-11-en · http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr/proposed-sco-framework-prin… · https://www.icann.org/news/public-comment/report-comments-sco-framework-pri… However, before we jump into these topics, we will take a few minutes to review what we have so far for our CC2 questions. We are going to need to finalize the WT3 specific questions so that they may be formally presented to the plenary session of the PDP on 27th. To date we have had virtually no input on these questions from the WT3 membership. Robin is taking a final pass over what leadership and staff have pulled together thus far, but please do take time to review and comment on them this week. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH… I look forward to talking with you all on the 21st. Have a great weekend, Karen ____________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day(a)sas.com SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert]

2 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 07 February
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 07 February. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+3+Meetings. In addition, excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. In addition, please see the attached documents referenced below – the slides on applicant freedom of expression, the CC2 draft questions, and the legal rights objection strawman edits from Paul McGrady. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 07 February 2017 1. Update from PDP Full Group -- No call this week. Resume next week. -- Getting volunteers to form small drafting teams for some of the overarching questions. -- Keeping an eye on the work tracks to develop the CC2 questions. -- Working towards Copenhagen for the full PDP WG meeting on Saturday, 11 March, tentatively 08;30-12;15 local time. 2. Review of CC2 Questions from WT3. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…. -- Staff and Karen have circulated the link to the Google doc of the CC2 document for review and participation in developing the questions. (See link above.) -- Would like to hear from WT3 members about the questions. No questions yet on new gTLD applicant freedom of expression, but hope to have them after today's discussion (as noted also in the chat). -- Are we ready to say that these are the questions to send to the full PDP WG? 2 positive checkmarks, one x mark -- need more discussion on legal rights objections questions. 3. 5. Legal Rights Objections – AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G – Recommendation 3 *Review of Strawman Proposal with Paul McGrady (attached) -- Discussed this previously and had some good feedback. -- Paul McGrady created a strawman (attached). 3.2.2.2 Legal Rights Objection First Para. -- Changed first sentence to "Any rightsholder". -- Changed "infringed" to "abused by the applied-for gTLD..." -- "infringed" made this unworkable since it is so narrow. 3.5.2 Legal Rights Objection: -- Added "or was filed for the purpose of triggering a private auction proceeding designed to obtain a payment from the objecter." -- 1. Whether the applied-for gTLD is identical [strike "or"] similar, add "or a translation or transliteration of" add open parens "(" prior to "including" and closed "parens ")" after "meaning". -- 3. Changed to "a applicant, in advocance of...conducted a trademark search for trademarks corresponding to the applied-for string: b. if the objection is based on common law rights, whether or not the applicant knew or should have known of the objector's mark", addition of new sections d and e. -- 5. Added "In the event that the string does not correspond to a famous trademark owned by the objector..." -- 6. Added new text [see the document] -- 7. Deleted as this can be gamed with mere corporate filings. -- 8. Added new text [see the document]. Discussion: -- Briefing on IGO/INGO PDP -- we need a placeholder where we mention IGO rights to make sure we are consistent with the final outcome of the PDP. -- Determining intent -- need to see if Paul's proposal addresses that or if there are other approaches. >From the chat: -- Jeff Neuman: Paul - what other harms other than Trademark Infringement (or likely infringement) would you recommend this objection address? -- Paul McGrady: Infringement is using a trademark for goods or services in a way that leads to consumer confusion in a way that suggests the two sources are somehow related. The primary form of abuse is having a registry that had an unlimited right at the second level for any type of goods and services. Primary concern is issue of dilution rather than infringement. -- Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, note that LRO is currently the vehicle for IGO objections as well... -- Jeff Neuman: Would you recommend the doctrine of foreign equivalents apply to only trademarks or would yo propose that they apply to registry operators of existing gTLDs? -- Rubens Kuhl: Even though it was not used in 2012. -- Jon Nevett: what % of english dictionary terms have a trademark in any jurisdiction in the world? Disagree with that too. -- avri doria: seems to require knowing intent, which is something i thought we said could not be known (personal view). -- Rubens Kuhl: http://domainnamewire.com/2014/02/10/how-common-words-like-pizza-money-and-… (With the caveat disclaimer that LRO criteria is not the same as TMCH criteria). -- Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): The policy recommendation states: Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others .. . . Are you proposing that the policy recommendation be revised to replace "infringe" with "abuse" the legal rights of others? If not, what is the rationale for the disconnect between the policy recommendations and the change to the LRO standing that you've proposed? -- Paul McGrady: I hadn't considered whether this would require a policy change, but we would need to look at that. We would need to look at recommendation 3 if what we have now is suitable, or if it means the same as section 3.2.2.2. It says "must not infringe existing legal rights of others" but may mean something different from the legal rights objection. -- Rubens Kuhl: Real life problem, evidenced by Merck x Merck: if marks have jurisdiction boundaries, does any restriction require geolocation-based blocking, since the Internet is global in nature ? -- avri doria: what does abuse mean? seems rather open. -- Rubens Kuhl: Kristina, I believe the timing here is exactly to see whether policy recommendation changes are needed. It seems this would be a required policy change to support for an implementation such as Paul is proposing. -- Jon Nevett: I need to drop in a few min too -- have LOTS of concerns with this proposal as well . We should look at all the LROs from the 2012 round and test any proposed changes. Paul, what kinds of cases are you trying to get at with the proposal? Think the proposal is way too overbroad. -- Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): My recollection (although going back to 2007-08) is that the GNSO intended to limit the LRO to trademark infringement, but I think it's something that needs to be reviewed. -- Rubens Kuhl: Paul, isn't what you suggested covered by UDRP ? For instance, if I register chairing.coach, I'm not trying to use to something to be used with Leather goods... while if someone registers leather.coach or bag.coach, it's likely to be infringing but could be took down by UDRP. (UDRP and URS, in fact) -- Jon Nevett: if we can't demonstrate a problem, then why are we looking for a solution? Questions: -- Overriding question -- what are you trying to do with this proposal? What was wrong with the LROs in the first round that you want to change for this round? -- Answer (Paul McGrady): I tried to walk through the explanations for the changes. Are there specific proposals that you have concerns about? The basic concern is if you apply for a registry with intention of abuse and infringement doesn't apply. Applicants should do a trademark search and show that abuse is not the intent. There is potential for abuse. 6. Introduction of Topic: New gTLD Applicant Freedom of Expression (See attached slides and excerpt from the Issue Report at: https://community.icann.org/x/Uz2AAw) -- Background (slide 2) -- Issue description (slide 3) -- snap shot of where the discussion group was at the time it wrote its report. -- "ICANN's Procedures and Policies in the Light of Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms and Democratic Values" (slide 4) -- Questions and Concerns Related to the Topic (slide 5) -- Rationale for Policy Development (slide 6)

1 0

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 07 February 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 07 February 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p91ejjbni68/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=3301ff0f1fff3dfc 78bdba634380b2dc21423ab6ed922f1b623118fc8ae11f01> https://participate.icann.org/p91ejjbni68/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uLPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 07 February 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 07 February 2017 at 15:00 UTC Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_u LPDAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ uLPDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=l1LwM8oTtzxX4waejW_qHSwp1LCSLHiU9Jca56Ctcm 8&s=RRXrg6_bu9nsCACp33nKxezsGQZlgIzdkNXQJsZ1GI4&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=l1LwM8oTtzxX4waejW_qHSwp1LCSLHiU9Jca56Ctcm8&s=RR Xrg6_bu9nsCACp33nKxezsGQZlgIzdkNXQJsZ1GI4&e= Gg Levine (NABP):I apologise in advance; I need to drop off at 9:30 for another call. Terri Agnew:thank you for this information Gg Paul McGrady:Good morning, afternoon, evening! avri doria:nothing to add Jeff Neuman:Steve will be making breakfast for us avri doria:they don't provide coffee any more do they? Emily Barabas:CC2 Google Doc: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen t_d_1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR-5Fb6-2DjH2Wl5eVH-2DWWM_edit <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume nt_d_1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR-5Fb6-2DjH2Wl5eVH-2DWWM_edit&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1 u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn -H4xR2EBk&m=l1LwM8oTtzxX4waejW_qHSwp1LCSLHiU9Jca56Ctcm8&s=IEPU33oP5L7u5B3Zeh ThtBFP49V_7LnUPkYSivyKops&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=l1LwM8oTtzxX4waejW_qHSwp1LCSLHiU9Jca56Ctcm8&s=IE PU33oP5L7u5B3ZehThtBFP49V_7LnUPkYSivyKops&e= Jeff Neuman:There are no Freedom of Expression questions yet Paul McGrady:@Jeff - correct. Paul McGrady:I was confused in thinking that 3.3 modified 3.2, buut it appears that they are seperate entirely. Jon Nevett:Agree -- walk through it all and then we shoot at it Emily Barabas:The document is unsynced -- everyone can scroll for themselves Karen Day:thanks, Emily Jeff Neuman:Paul - what other harms other than Trademark Infringement (or likely infringement) would you recommend this policy address? Jeff Neuman:Sorry, this objection address? Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, note that LRO is currently the vehicle for IGO objections as well... Jeff Neuman:Would you recommend the doctrine of foreign equivalents apply to only trademarks or would yo propose that they apply to registry operators of existing gTLDs? Rubens Kuhl:Even though it was not used in 2012. Jon Nevett:what % of english dictionary terms have a trademark in any jurisdiction in the world? Jon Nevett:disagree with that too avri doria:seems to require knowing intent, which is something i thought we said could not be known (personal view) Rubens Kuhl:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainnamewire.com_ 2014_02_10_how-2Dcommon-2Dwords-2Dlike-2Dpizza-2Dmoney-2Dand-2Dshopping-2Den ded-2Dup-2Din-2Dthe-2Dtrademark-2Dclearinghouse-2Dfor-2Dnew-2Dtlds_&d=DwIFaQ &c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qf qa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=l1LwM8oTtzxX4waejW_qHSwp1LCSLHiU9Jca56Ctcm8&s=DTdvSU4Hvrd 8ngfU0GvT_-P9m3zmMGnSSvs8YvAAqeU&e= Rubens Kuhl:(With the caveat disclaimer that LRO criteria is not the same as TMCH criteria) Jeff Neuman:All - I need to drop, but will listen to the rest of the call later. Jeff Neuman:Thanks Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):The policy recommendation states: Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others .. . . Are you proposing that the policy recommendation be revised to replace "infringe" with "abuse"? If not, what is the rationale for the disconnect between the policy recommendations and the change to the LRO standing that you've proposed? Rubens Kuhl:Real life problem, evidenced by Merck x Merck: if marks have jurisdiction boundaries, does any restriction require geolocation-based blocking, since the Internet is global in nature ? avri doria:what does abuse mean? seems rather open. Rubens Kuhl:Kristina, I believe the timing here is exactly to see whether policy recommendation changes are needed. It seems this would be a required policy change to support for an implementation such as Paul is proposing. Jon Nevett:I need to drop in a few min too -- have LOTS of concerns with this proposal as well Jon Nevett:we should look at all the LROs from the 2012 round and test any proposed changes Jon Nevett:Paul, what kinds of cases are you trying to get at with the proposal? Think the proposal is way too overbroad. Alan Greenberg:COuld I please be unmuted (I can't seem to do it myself) Steve Chan:@Alan, done, I believe Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):My recollection (although going back to 2007-08) is that the GNSO intended to limit the LRO to trademark infringement, but I think it's something that needs to be reviewed. Rubens Kuhl:Paul, isn't what you suggested covered by UDRP ? For instance, if I register chairing.coach, I'm not trying to use to something to be used with Leather goods... while if someone registers leather.coach or bag.coach, it's likely to be infringing but could be took down by UDRP. Rubens Kuhl:(UDRP and URS, in fact) Jon Nevett:citing a second level name as evidence of infringement on a top level name is not useful -- we have the UDRP and URS to deal with 2nd level names Rubens Kuhl:Have to drop now. Will hear the remaining of the call later. Jon Nevett:if we can't demonstrate a problem, then why are we looking for a solution? Emily Barabas:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann .org_x_Uz2AAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2d XAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=l1LwM8oTtzxX4waejW_qHSwp1LCSLHiU9Jc a56Ctcm8&s=7MXUOVWoGSLcida6YkgaK0k4E2I8GVXvWHgBJRklEEQ&e= Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to drop for the RA Amendments webinar. Thanks, all. Terri Agnew:New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Robin Gross:Thanks Karen and all, bye!

1 0

Work Track 3 - 07Feb17 15:00 - Agenda & Materials
by Karen Day Feb. 6, 2017

Feb. 6, 2017

Dear all, Attached please find the agenda for our WT3 call tomorrow at 15:00 UTC. The main focus of our meeting will be the proposed revisions to the Legal Rights Objections process as set forth by Paul McGrady. Paul will be leading us through this discussion. A copy is attached for your ease of reference. The second thing which we need to wrap up is our input on CC2 questions from our WT (Attached). The plan is to discuss the full CC2 with the full PDP group on the 13th. so we need to get sign-off on our area this week. As always, if you are unable to make the call tomorrow, please make us of the email list to share your input with the group. Looking forward to speaking with you all tomorrow, Karen

1 0

CC2 Draft Questions
by Karen Day Jan. 22, 2017

Jan. 22, 2017

Hello fellow WT3 members, As we discussed on our call this past week, we need to work over email during the next week to firm up our questions to be presented to the overall Subsequent Procedures Work Group for inclusion in CC2. To this end, I have created a Google Doc where I have started the process by forming into rough questions, those items which we’ve previously noted during our conversations would be good for CC2. Please comment/add/edit directly in the document. My hope is that we can take care of this on the list and not have to try to cram another call into our already hectic schedules, so please do give it some thought and take a few minutes to contribute this week. https://docs.google.com/document/d/17ptmleobQdBMTqDSvrcc4lL4vt9gvdLQfgMFHy9… Best regards, Karen ____________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day(a)sas.com SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert]

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 17 January
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 17, 2017

Jan. 17, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 17 January. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+3+Meetings. In addition, excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 17 January 2017 1. Update from the full WG: -- Conclusions -- agreed to give a week's more comment on setting up a drafting team on setting up a matrix on categories. -- Also a second group on how we look at rounds. 2. Proposed WT3 work plan & discussion schedule going forward -- Work track 4 will meet this week. -- Next week is Namescon and Policy Retreat. -- Every working track is working on their timeline. 3. Review of all New GTLD Objections: Statistics of all Objections and New staff analysis (Steve) -- Note much conversation in the meetings, hope we can have more updates on the list. -- How can we make this more manageable. -- A lot of this work on objection is to get feedback from those indirectlly affected by the objections. -- Shall we go forward with this proposal? Action Item: Ask how those were involved how we can contribute: >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Should we create a small drafting team to work on the questions? Jeff Neuman: @Jon, not to put you on the spot, but if we asked you to participate in this, would you agree to such an interview? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jeff: One option. Another option would be to hold an "open house" during Copenhagen during which folks with experience with objections could drop in and provide whatever input they want? Jeff Neuman: @Kristina - That is a great idea if they are willing to share experiences in an open environment Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jeff: good point. Jeff Neuman: We would also have to develop questions and ask GDD to help facilitate questions we may have for the Independent Objector Jeff Neuman: Objector Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): another good opportunity yes Kristina Jon Nevett: I think that the registry group started pulling some of these issues together -- might make sense to wait for that input so we don't have to duplicate. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): evidence of consistency? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): For those objections for which the fees were variable, do we know what the high and low fees were as well as the mean and the medium? Jon Nevett: staff should get that info from the 4 providers Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): The purpose of collecting this information would be to allow us to assess if fees were too high (or low) and make recommendations accordingly. Steve Chan: @Kristina, we can take the question back to the GDD. 4. Recap and positioning on Limited Public Interest Objections a. Content & function for purpose of policy stated in AGB 3.2.2.3 and b. 3.5.3 and needs with regards to future implementation -- Analysis on objections: Staff tried to do some ground work to do targeted research. We looked at applications that had requests for reconsiderations. We looked at similar objections. -- Saw the request for reconsiderations, of 22 out of 208 ended up in reconsiderations. -- We didn't have a clear idea of what we were looking for. Without frist-hand experiences we have a huge scope of work. From a staff perspective we are cautious about looking at each objections. -- Low numbers may suggest that issues aren't quite as rampant. -- We are looking of guidance: targeted outreach? Looking for issues without hypothesis? -- What kinds of issues should we be looking for and how far down should we go? Staff are looking for input from the community? -- Without having a hypothesis to test against. we are not legal experts we are leery of critiquing. -- Not sure about a hypothesis -- in trademark there is a confusingly similar standard. -- When ICANN drafted the AGB is there now a way to pull out certain common factors used by the evaluators --- to give guidance to future evaluators? -- Are there ways to pull out factors that would guide us? c. ALAC Standing Issue -- Remove standing from the ALARs or removing funding? -- The judgment presumed standing, but didn't go ahead. Discuss with the ALAC. -- Strongly in opposition giving ALAC any standing and funding. Accessible to outside lobbying. -- This will be discussed in the ALAC. Object to the term lobbying. Unless someone can cite a specific case we will not change what we did before. -- Not to change things without evidence. d. Does the Process Invite Lobbying From Third Parties? -- Filing was frivolous (personally). Question is what is the harm of the ALAC filing an objection? -- Filed on behalf of users if we thought there was potential user harm. -- Another issue where there is a diversity of viewpoints. -- Need to discuss and determine whether there is some kind of mechanism for accountability. >From the Chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jon: that assumes we recommend the IO remain . . . . Jon Nevett: yep avri doria: any discussion should also include a reference to the extensive feedback and mechansims that the ALAC did set up these sorts of mechanism are often used for accountabity.. Does ALAC accept the notion that they filed frivolously? Jeff Neuman: Giving a venue for feedback is not the same as accountability. Alan Greenberg: The AALC does not accept that. Moreover, we also considered very carefully whether filing such an objection implied and personal liability. In my mind it is clear we dod not do this frivolously. avri doria: money vs. amazing amounts of volunteer time? avri doria: and can we say that all paid objections were filed accountably? avri doria: and people with vendettas and money spend it freely avri doria: and can we say that all paid objections were filed accountably? avri doria: and people with vendettas and money spend it freely Jeff Neuman: The IO had a professional reputation for being an expert in international disputes Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Alan: The IO may not have had a stake in the objection you're referencing, but he was found to have one in the .amazon objections. Terri Agnew 2: finding the line Michael Flemming: Somewhat Jeff Neuman: Yes Robin.... Alan Greenberg: @Kristine. I understand that. But it was not the design og the process that was at falt. If you are correct, then it was very much an extremely poor processthat allowed it to happen. That alone does not imply we shouldnot have an IO in the future. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Alan: We'll put a pin in that for now. 5. Legal Rights Objections – AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G – Recommendation 3 a. Review of WIPO & INTA Reports on LRO -- Need Paul McGrady and some time to evaluate this proposal. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: For Legal RIghts Objections, it would be good to have Paul McGrady to explain his proposal. Alan Greenberg: I have not heard anyone claim we had a personal stake in the results, other than caring about those whose interests we represent. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Paul is in China.

2 1

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesda17 January 2017 at 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Jan. 17, 2017

Jan. 17, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 03:00 UTC. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/s7PDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 17 January 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 03:00 UTC Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Karen Day:Let's shoot for double diget attendance at least ;-)\ Jeff Neuman:This is a tough time for participants I guess. I think we had this issue before with Work Track 3 Robin Gross:We can hope. Karen Day:The bulk of our members are West Coast US so that makes both this time and the 1500 not good for those with families Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Is there a (semi)standard set of questions that we're looking to answer for each objection type? Karen Day:@Kristina - yes, but at a very high level. I'll find the reference for you in a minute but it's things like "were expectations met" Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Karen, thanks. Jeff Neuman:Should we create a small drafting team to work on the questions? Jeff Neuman:@Jon, not to put you on the spot, but if we asked you to participate in this, would you agree to such an interview? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Jeff: One option. Another option would be to hold an "open house" during Copenhagen during which folks with experience with objections could drop in and provide whatever input they want? Jeff Neuman:@Kristina - That is a great idea if they are willing to share experiences in an open environment Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Jeff: good point. Michael Flemming:I'd be willing to sit down and talk about our experiences. Jeff Neuman:We would also have to develop questions and ask GDD to help facilitate questions we may have for the Independent Obector Jeff Neuman:Objector Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):another good opportunity yes Kristina Jon Nevett:I think that the registry group started pulling some of these issues together -- might make sense to wait for that input so we don't have to duplicate. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):evidence of consistency? Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):For those objections for which the fees were variable, do we know what the high and low fees were as well as the mean and the medium? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Sorry for staying on mute. Upstairs neighbor doing construction. Jon Nevett:staff should get that info from the 4 providers Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):The purpose of collecting this information would be to allow us to assess if fees were too high (or low) and make recommendations accordingly Steve Chan:@Kristina, we can take the question back to the GDD. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Steve, thanks. Jon Nevett:shouldn't the ALAC just work any objections through the IO? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Jon: that assumes we recommend the IO remain . . . . Jon Nevett:yep avri doria:any discussion should also include a reference to the extensive feedback and mechansims that the ALAC did set up these sorts of mechanism are often used for accountabity.. Does ALAC accept the notion that they filed frivolously? Jeff Neuman:Giving a venue for feedback is not the same as accountability. Alan Greenberg:The AALC does not accept that. Moreover, we also considered very carefully whether filing such an objection implied and personal liability. In my mind it is clear we dod not do this frivolously. avri doria:money vs. amazing amounts of volunteer time? avri doria:and can we say that all paid objections were filed accountably? avri doria:and people with vendettas and money spend it freely Jeff Neuman:The IO had a professional reputation for being an expert in international disputes Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Alan: The IO may not have had a stake in the objection you're referencing, but he was found to have one in the .amazon objections. Terri Agnew 2:finding the line Michael Flemming:Somewhat Jeff Neuman:Yes Robin.... Alan Greenberg:@Kristine. I understand that. But it was not the design og the process that was at falt. If you are correct, then it was very much an extremely poor processthat allowed it to happen. That alone does not imply we shouldnot have an IO in the future. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Alan: We'll put a pin in that for now. Jeff Neuman:For Legal RIghts Objections, it would be good to have Paul McGrady to explain his proposal Alan Greenberg:I have not heard anyone claim we had a personal stake in the results, other than caring about those whose interests we represent. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Paul is in China. Terri Agnew 2:next meeting: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 07 February 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Jeff Neuman:Is the webinar being recorded. May not be able to attend at that time, but would love to listen afterwards. Jeff Neuman:Is it being recorded? Was a question avri doria:i am sue it will be recorded Jeff Neuman:Cool! avri doria:... sure ... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx all.. Bye for now.... Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):bye Karen Day 2:Thanks everyone Karen Day 2:bye avri doria:bye

1 0

Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Invitation Webinar Community TLDs and Human Rights January 18 - 15:00 UTC
by avri doria Jan. 5, 2017

Jan. 5, 2017

hi, Of probable interest to the work being done here. avri -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Invitation Webinar Community TLDs and Human Rights January 18 - 15:00 UTC Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 16:00:13 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever <lists(a)DIGITALDISSIDENTS.ORG> Reply-To: Niels ten Oever <lists(a)DIGITALDISSIDENTS.ORG> To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Dear all, On behalf of the ARTICLE 19, the Council of Europe, and the Cross Community Working Party on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights I am very happy to invite you to a ** webinar on Community top-level domains (TLDs) and human rights ** * January 18 - 15:00 UTC at https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ * In this webinar we will present and discuss the main findings from the Council of Europe report on Community Based gTLDs and Human Rights [0] with: Facilitators: Niels ten Oever Head of Digital at Article 19 Chair of the CCWP HR Rapporteur for CCWG WS2 Human Rights sub-team Patrick Penninckx Head of Information Society Department, Council of Europe Key findings: Eve Salomon, Co-Author of the report International consultant and legal expert on media law and human rights Kinanya Pijl Co-Author of the report PhD Candidate, European University, Florence Discussants: Mark Carvell GAC Vice-Chair Co-Chair GAC WG on Human Rights and International Law Chris Disspain ICANN Board Member Jamie Baxter Dotgay LLC Cherine Chalaby ICANN Board Member Avri Dora Internet Researcher Co-Chair Subsequent gTLD procedures WG We're greatly looking forward to your participation. Feel free to share this invitation widely among your constituencies and communities. All the best, Niels ten Oever [0] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53772653/Report%20on%20Com… Please find the AC room and dial in details here: Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: CCWP HR For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-466 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SLOVENIA 0-800-81310 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 PS Sorry for cross-posting -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 20 December
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 21, 2016

Dec. 21, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 20 December. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+3+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 20 December 1. Update from the Full PDP Working Group (Avri Doria) · Focused on completing the first reading of the CC1. Completed that process. · Next step is for the Chairs and staff to try to pull together a first draft of a document that makes recommendations based on responses to CC1 · Poll on changing the rotation schedule to take the 3:00 UTC Monday out of rotation and replace with 3:00 UTC Tuesday. 2. Recap and Positioning on Limited Public Interest Objections a. Content & function for purpose of policy stated in AGB 3.2.2.3 and 3.5.3 b. Needs with regard to future implementation · Last meeting interesting discussion on this topic and there seemed to be some consensus around not needing major changes. Do we agree? [No objections offered.] · Think about a different interpretation on terminology. >From the chat: Gg Levine (NABP): "Universally" seems unrealistic as an alternative to "generally." Karen Day: universal isn't realistic so is there anything better than generally? Gg Levine (NABP): Sorry, I don't have a better suggestion than generally. Karen Day: Gg - Me either so absent anyone coming up with one, looks to me like "generally" is what we'll need to stick with. c. ALAC lack of standing · Discussion about the issue of ALAC being given funding to participate in the Limited Public Interest Objection process but not having standing. · Will be a discussion in the ALAC on this topic, whether to continue the process. Will come back to this group as that discussion proceeds. · The ALAC was given funding but not given standing, like the independent objector. To file a public interest objection you have to have some involvement in the issue. Classic Catch-22. · So, the solution could be to give ALAC standing or to removing the funding. · Maybe the intent was to fund ALAC where they would otherwise have standing to object. · Don't think it was actively discussed. ALAC decided to file objections similarly to filing advice to the Board (such as on confusingly similar). One way or another it has to be clarified or withdrawn. Not much more to say on this until we know whether or not the ALAC wants to continue with this option. · Did the ALAC file for the same things as the Independent Objector did? If so that would be duplication. · The Independent Objector was to pick up objections from those who had no other way to object. ALAC like the other ACs had the ability to object to things that were within their area of concern. Might need to say something about how the IOs are selected and used, to tighten up the descriptions. >From the Chat: Greg Shatan: Maybe the intent was to allow ALAC to object only where they had standing. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: Good points from Alan here. ALAC is representing the users, even if it is difficult to prove. Paul McGrady 2: Apologies if this has already been asked, but were there times when ALAC filed an objection on a string that the I.O. didn't object to? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that was the rationale for being funded to object Yes Annabeth Kiran Malancharuvil: I'm okay with standing for alac if the objection process requires alac to justify why this is on behalf of users. avri doria: lots of things may not have appeared clear to the panelists all along the way. By default however, it will stand as it is. Greg Shatan: Did ALAC analyze the standing issue before filing the objections? Or was it just assumed that there would be standing? Karen Day: @Greg - we're looking at doing deeper research in the objections themselves and if we get it lined up we will definately add this question as one to include. d. Does the process invite lobbying from 3rd parties? · Example: WHO lobbying ALAC. Concerns that this could be a problem. · There was an allegation that ALAC was being gamed. There is no question that the WHO is one of the groups that brought this to ALAC's attention. They carried out due diligence. Don't think it was gaming. · Clarification: Question about lobbying was in relation to the ALAC funding and standing issues. · One could be more clear if ALAC is funded again what their process would be. Could say that it is appropriate that things are brought to their attention according to their user community. Separate from whether there should be funding for ALAC and only ALAC. Needs a revisit overall. >From the chat: Kiran Malancharuvil: how would you ever solve for that? Paul McGrady 2: Isn't the WHO an end user? Can't an end user ask the ALAC for help? I guess I don't see the gaming. Kiran Malancharuvil: agree avri doria: i think the notion of gaming and esepcially accusations of gaming are pernitious and should be avoided as much as possible. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree avri doria: judging the intentionality of others is really hard. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: @Avri - agree Greg Shatan: WHO is an IGO and thus aligned more with the GAC, but I suppose we could also call them an end-user. Alan Greenberg: Note that Jeff made it clear he was taking off his chair hat and speaking with relation to one of the applicants. (If I remember correctly). We did not class WHO as an end user, but as a group that alerted us to an end-user issue. Kurt Pritz: (1) I found 23 Limited Public Interest Objections - all seem bona fide except of course, we cannot tell with the Independent Objector or ALAC; (2) Everyone has standing to file a Limited Public Interest Objection, ALAC file one and withdrew it (although I do not know why) so why was ALAC denied standing? Kiran Malancharuvil 2: I honestly don't understand how we can call anything gaming. This is an open process. Organizations have every right to engage in the process. I think there's a tendency at ICANN to devalue certain voices (corporations, organizations, etc.) and I think that's dangerous. Multi-stakeholder is multi-stakeholder. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: For me, gaming is something very different from what we are talking about now. I must be allowed to make a stakeholdergroup aware of a problem. Paul McGrady 2: @Annebeth - agree. "Gaming" is something sinister. End Users making ALAC aware of a concern is not. Phil Buckingham: +1 Annabeth. 3. Legal Rights Objections – AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G – Recommendation 3; See Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.4.3+Objections a. Review of Objections Statistics with links to results for LRO cases. b. Review of WIPO Final Report on LRO c. Review of INTA Report – The ICANN LRO: Statistics and Takeaways: See: https://community.icann.org/x/Vz2AAw · Instead of trying to guess based on the statistics that we had an overwhelming number of applicants prevail and therefore the cases must have been no good, which should step back and suggest changes to the policy to make it useful for the future. One reason why the complainents lost because the LRO isn't tailored to do its job. Enfringement has to do with use, which is hard to prove. Not a useful policy. Need to do some significant reworking if we are going to protect consumers. · One of the issues that Paul McGrady has raised in his proposal and possible solution -- anyone else want to weigh in? · Seems that the LRO were nearly impossible to win from the mark owner, if the mark had more than one meaning the panelists decided it wasn't bad faith. Need more points for an inference of bad faith. · A lot of this stems from the fact that the standards that were being applied were kind of a hash, and also whether there was precedential value on decisions and what is being judged. · Not a lot of sympathy for trademark names when we are talking about a dictionary term. Don't want to take a dictionary word out of common use >From the chat: · Kurt Pritz: Are there any decisions where we thought the panel incorrectly found for the applicant? · Paul McGrady 2: Bad faith can only be inferred from the facts - unless a party admits to it - so we need more inference points. · avri doria: i think trying to decide that a decsion of a panel was right or wrong is tough since there are two sides, at least, to each of the cases. we can mre look for places where different panels seemed to decide similar cases in a contradictory manner. · Kurt Pritz: Abuse or infringement is generally demonstrated through use and there is no "use" at the application stage. (As Paul said.) But we should take care not to make a process that is more easily winnable just to balance out the results. There should be real infringement before an application is defined. · Paul McGrady 2: I think abuse can be shown without use as can dilution; infringement is based on use though. · Kurt Pritz: Has the delegation of .coach or .express resulted in abuse? · Paul McGrady 2: http://purses.coach/ leads to PPC ads, so yes. @Robin, we should be careful with throwing around terms like "generic." · Kurt Pritz: Then the RPM can be used with that specific example for purse.coach but all legitimate uses of a .coach name should not be barred. · Nathaniel Edwards: Yes, but because a trademark is a dictionary term does not mean that it is not an arbitrary or fanciful trademark entitled to broad protection. GOOGLE had a dictionary meaning before it was a trademark. · Greg Shatan: wallets.coach and handbags.coach do the same. Feh. · Paul McGrady 2: Dictionary entry does not = generic. · Rubens Kuhl: Google did not. Googol did. · Greg Shatan: Looks like all of those (bags.coach, too) are owned by Coach. Apparently registered defensively. Coincidence or business plan? · avri doria: Again, indicating intentions is risky. Paul McGrady on Legal Rights Objection 3.2.2.2 [Reading through the attached document with proposed language.] Action: Look through the proposal and discussion on the list/at next meeting.

3 2