thanks, Phil. I think because we have different interpretations of what those practices are - and having them on the call next week would greatly clarify status from that perspective, and the options or implications of any policy changes. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Date: Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:23 PM Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks To: ipcdigangi@gmail.com <ipcdigangi@gmail.com>, rtushnet@law.harvard.edu < rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> In a personal capacity – before we consider asking Deloitte to speak with us, which will further prolong discussion and deliberation, why don’t we ask if there has been any material change in their practice since they answered our questions in the past? If there is no change then no point in verbal engagement. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey* *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> * On Behalf Of *claudio di gangi *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 2:57 PM *To:* Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks I agree with Lori that Deloitte is doing their absolute best to follow "the letter of the law" so to speak, i.e. what is contained in the Applicant Guidebook, and that they have generated accurate results in that regard. I understand that we may have different points of view, so this would be another area where it would be benefit from Deloitte being invited to participate on our call next week to inform our discussions on the current state of play, implications of any potential changes from a policy and implementation perspective, and so we are all clear on where things stand on questions #7 and #8. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:38 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote: The answers from Deloitte don’t reflect this claim. They reflect a policy of putting in whatever can fit, extracting any text at all from any mark, disclaimed or not. That’s not indicative of any thought or policy based in substance. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. On Sep 11, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> wrote: I agree with that. Deloitte has come up with guidelines and procedures that show that thought has been put into the process and they are not letting just anything in. We can’t agree on our terminology, how can we expect them to do it? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy *International Trademark Association (INTA)* +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman *From:* BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:56 PM *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; Lori Schulman < lschulman@inta.org>; zak@muscovitch.com; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Speaking personally, I’m not sure I agree with the supposition that “Deloitte accepts marks too readily” especially given the lack of clarity on an agreed definition of text only/standard character marks. In fact, that is the very core of the discusions around Kathy and Zak’s proposal. Thank! Brian Sent from my WIPO mobile On 11 September 2019 at 18:37:05 CEST, Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote: Thanks Lori. We seem to be closing the gap. Given that there is general agreement within the WG that Deloitte accepts design marks too readily, but some remaining disagreement about how to address that, this co-chair hopes that wide support can at least be found for those elements of a response on which there is broad agreement. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey* *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:06 PM *To:* Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear All, We have had some side line conversations regarding the proposal below. I informed Zak separately and wish to conveny that this is where the IPC currently stands: 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims
all<< words, it *does not* enter TMCH. – IPC agrees.
1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims
some but not all words<< it *does *enters the TMCH. – IPC agrees.
1. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. – The IPC disagrees as this would undermine the purpose of registering with the TMCH to begin with. 1. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. – The IPC is willing to discuss this proposal. We agree in principle that language that is not well understood or could frighten an unsophisticated applicant should be revised. However, the notice should not be providing legal advice or any advice about effects of certain types of trademark registrations. 1. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. – The IPC does not agree as this outcome is contrary to trademark law. In general, it appears that Greg’s proposal addresses 3 and 5. To what degree to people object? We see the proposal as creating a solution for a small problem with significant, unintended consequences. There are objections procedures for domains registered during Sunrise period and we believe that these procedures should be highlighted as remedy for the concerns that registrant’s have regarding this issue. Thank you for opening the dialog and we look forward to more discussion where we can find compromise. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy *International Trademark Association (INTA)* +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Zak Muscovitch *Sent:* Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:36 PM *To:* Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear Co-chairs, Staff and WG members, please see below a revised proposal regarding Question #7 (TMCH/Design Marks): 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims
all<< words, it *does not* enter TMCH.
1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims
some but not all words<< it *does *enters the TMCH.
1. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. 1. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. 1. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. This proposal has been circulated amongst some stakeholders for feedback (with mixed results), however I am now sharing it with the entire Working Group. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada....> https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=D...> https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFa...> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Zak Muscovitch *Sent:* September-04-19 1:07 PM *To:* Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; Corwin, Philip < pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Attached is the redline version. Apologies for only sending it now. Zak Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada....> https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=D...> https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFa...> *From:* Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> *Sent:* September-04-19 12:48 PM *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; Zak Muscovitch < zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Support Phil’s suggestion and a post call redline per my earlier message. Thank you. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy *International Trademark Association (INTA)* +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman *From:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:39 PM *To:* zak@muscovitch.com; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Zak: As we reviewed all the proposals last week, I would suggest that you focus in your presentation on what changes you and Kathy have made to the original and the rationale for doing so. Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:36 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Lori, I'm trying to get one together, not sure I will be able to unfortunately. Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada....> https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=D...> https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFa...> From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Sent: September-04-19 12:08 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com>; Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Thank you for this. As this is so close to the call, do you have a redline so we can compare the changes quickly? It would be most helpful to be prepared on a quick notice. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 11:45 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear Co-Chairs, Working Group Members, and Staff, Further to the call last week and further to the below Agenda for today's call, please see the attached updated proposal re: Question #7, from Kathy Kleiman and myself. You will note therein, that the revised proposal contains some revised language, some revised rationale, and a potential alternative to the existing rule for discussion purposes. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada....> https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=D...> https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFa...> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: September-03-19 1:02 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the agenda and materials for the WG meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 04 September at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Please note the following actions captured from last week's meeting and sent to the list last week: Actions: 1. Revision of Existing Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members who had previously submitted proposals relating to the Open TMCH Questions (see attached) may offer revised proposals that take into consideration the work completed by the WG since the proposals were originally submitted. 2. New Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members may submit new proposals relating to Charter questions 7, 8, and 10. Please send suggested revisions or new proposals by COB today, 03 September, if at all possible. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions (see attached Summary document. It is the same as the May 2017 version but with formatting for readability and text from relevant TMCH and AGB references): * Question 7 - Proposals from Kathy Kleiman and Greg Shatan * Question 8 - Proposals from Paul McGrady, Kathy Kleiman, Jonathan Agmon, and Claudio di Gangi * If Time Permits: Question 10 - Proposal from Michael Graham 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel <ATT00001.txt> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.