I support Kristina’s comments shown in the attachment and note that she also states in her comment on page 10 that the LRO in 2012 was not an “infringement” standard.  Kristina suggests in the attachment that we simply refer to the “standard used in 2012”  if we are not willing to set out the three grounds set forth in the AGB and copied again below.

 

This same reference to “infringement analysis” occurs on page 15 of draft Section 1.8 so the language there should be conformed to the language chosen for page 10.

 

Again, the standard for LRO from 2012 is as follows:

 

As provided for in section 3.5.2 of the ICANN Applicant Guidebook, the independent panel will determine whether the potential use of the applied-for gTLD by the applicant:

(i)                 takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s registered or unregistered trademark or service mark (“mark”) or IGO name or acronym, or

(ii)               unjustifiably impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym, or

(iii)             otherwise creates an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for gTLD and the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym.

 

Anne

 

 

 

This time with attachment. Apologies.

 

 

 

My comments and suggestions on 1.8 attached.

 

 

Dear WG Members,

 

With apologies for the late delivery, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for 18 June 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes.

 

1. Agenda Review
2. Roll Call/SOIs
3. Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org) in advance of the meeting.
   1. Review of Section 1.8 (Accountability Mechanisms)
   2. Review of Section 1.9 (Community Applications)
4. Review of other sections in the Initial Report
5. AOB

 

For Item 3, the relevant documents are attached. As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB.

 

For Item 4, you will find a draft of most of the other sections within the Initial Report, including the Preamble and the Executive Summary. You will see a placeholder in Section 2, which states, “Insert sections from the excerpts reviewed by Working Group…” – here, staff will insert the sections we have been reviewing for the last couple of months, inclusive of any changes as needed from discussions on calls and on list.

  

Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org).

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steven Chan


Policy Director, GNSO Support

 

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536


steve.chan@icann.org

mobile: +1.310.339.4410

office tel: +1.310.301.5800

office fax: +1.310.823.8649

 

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.

 

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/

http://gnso.icann.org/en/