- Gnso-rpm-trademark - lists.icann.org

times for our virtual meetings
by Kathy Kleiman March 9, 2020

March 9, 2020

All,We are looking forward to our three, and possibly four, virtual RPM WG meetings for ICANN67 (Monday to Wednesday, with Thursday as a possibility if we have not finished earlier). In case you were not on our last call, I want to share a quick note about timing from the ICANN meeting website: NOTE: All times reflected in the schedule are Eastern Standard Time (MX) for Cancún, Quintana Roo, Mexico [UTC-5]. On 8 March, Eastern Standard Time (EST) changes in the U.S. and Canada to Eastern Daylight saving Time (EDT), however, there is NO TIME CHANGE in Cancún, Mexico or to the posted Virtual Community Forum schedule on this date. See you on our first call -- Today, Mon, 3/9, at 1:45pm Cancun time (2:45pm EDT)! Best, Kathy

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8
by claudio di gangi Sept. 18, 2019

Sept. 18, 2019

Here is my compromise proposal consolidated/clarified in one location: *1) Going forward, GI may be accepted in the Clearinghouse (and recorded separately as such within the database to distinguish them from TM records) under "3.2.4 - other marks that constitute intellectual property" OR** shall be permitted to be recorded in one ancillary GI database, e.g. "the unitary, ancillary GI Database", that all registries/registrars may voluntarily connect with;* *2) GIs shall NOT be protected during the Sunrise or TM Claims period, unless they are also registered as trademarks and otherwise meet the qualifying criteria for such trademarks;* *3) the protection of GIs (those that are not also registered as trademarks) shall NOT be considered a mandatory RPM* * for any new gTLD registry;* *4) for new gTLD registries that desire or choose to protect GIs (as permitted by the current rules) based on local laws and/or for other consumer protection reasons, GIs may be protected and registered as domain names during the Limited Registration Period, and/or by the issuance of a GI Claims Notice, and which shall be supported by the unitary, **ancillary** GI database.* On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:34 PM Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> wrote: > Claudio and All, > > For those who may not be able to follow all of the messages, could you > send a full set of what you are thinking of for new language/Q#8? At least > two Pauls have commented, so I am not sure what you are referencing. Having > it all in one place would be useful. > > Tx, Kathy > > > <<Rebecca, all, > > > I support John's proposal below as the simplest approach, with Paul's > language about 3.2.4 being the qualifying text for the inclusion of > GIs, along with a provision this IP database will be centralized for all > new gTLD registries. > > Rebecca - you asked about the supporting rationale in a recent note, so I > would like to address your question. > > The purpose is to avoid creating a scenario of having 300 (or pick some > number) of ancillary databases, each requiring separate submissions and > validations. Again, I say this because Mary confirmed that currently the > ancillary database concept is registry-specific. The main TMCH is not > registry-specific, all new gTLD registries connect to the database in a > unified manner. > > For the sake of providing examples, <.tea> launches as a new gTLD in the > next round; that registry will need to expend time and resources to > collaborate with Deloitte to establish a new ancillary database, and the > regional authority/producers of DARJEELING TEA, (under the current model) > would be required to submit the GI registration to the ancillary database > of <.tea> and have it validated at that time. > > In the same round, <.चाय> launches ("tea" in the Hindi script - a language > spoken in India, as an IDN), the current model requires this same (or > different) registry operator to create another new ancillary database, > with new submissions of registrations, additional validations, etc. > > <.drinks>, <.beverages>, <.web>, <.internet>, etc.. the list goes on and > on, for every new gTLD there has to be separate ancillary databases. Each > registry and registrar will then have to allocate resources to promote the > registry-specific database to IP owners around the world, and connect to > the database from a technical level. I can only imagine the confusion and > unnecessary costs that this approach would impose on contracted parties and > the public. > > It would also defeat the purpose and benefit of a having a centralized, > unified system that simplifies recordation and validation from both an > administrative and technical basis for all parties. > > The Limited Registration Period is an existing RPM that functions similar > to Sunrise, but takes place after the Sunrise Period, during which > time these 3.2.4. marks can be protected. Since it is already permitted, I > propose that we specify there is a voluntary option for a IP Claims notice > for these 3.2.4 marks (identical to the TM Claims notice, i.e. using the > same language). > > These are completely voluntary RPMs for contracted parties - especially, > for those that operate in jurisdictions where GIs are protected under local > laws, and/or for those which decide to take proactive measures to prevent > abusive registrations in their TLD(s) to have a safe namespace for > their users. Since registries are already allowed to create voluntary RPMs, > the proposal is based on improving things from a technical and > administrative basis, in a manner that is fully consistent with the law, > and with the overall goal of protecting consumers and promoting trust in > new gTLDs. > > Finally, as Brian noted there is an existing database of GIs, managed by > OriGin, which Deloitte/IBM can interface with to help simplify the process, > which is an idea we can include for public comment in association with the > main recommendation. > > All we need to do is agree that this approach makes sense from a policy > perspective, and the IRT that follows this PDP can develop the appropriate > implementation procedures to put everything into place. > > Please let me know of any questions. > > Best regards, > Claudio > > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:23 PM John McElwaine < > john.mcelwaine(a)nelsonmullins.com> wrote: > >> I would propose simplifying this a bit. The issue that we have is that >> Deloitte should not be placing “other marks that constitute intellectual >> property” in the “Clearinghouse”. The Trademark Clearinghouse is more than >> just to service Sunrise and Claims services. See AGB TMCH Section 1.2 >> (“The Clearinghouse will be required to separate its two primary functions: >> (i) authentication and validation of the trademarks in the Clearinghouse; >> and (ii) serving as a database to provide information to the new gTLD >> registries to support pre-launch Sunrise or Trademark Claims Services. >> Whether the same provider could serve both functions or whether two >> providers will be determined in the tender process.”) Unfortunately, >> Section 3.2 muddies the waters and lists “other marks” as being capable of >> inclusion “in the Clearinghouse”. >> >> >> >> However, the purpose behind Section 3.2.2 is provided a bit more light in >> Section 3.6: “Data supporting entry into the Clearinghouse of marks that >> constitute intellectual property of types other than those set forth in >> sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 above shall be determined by the registry operator and >> the Clearinghouse based on the services any given registry operator chooses >> to provide.” With respect to such other IP, the “Trademark Clearinghouse >> Service Provider may provide ancillary services, as long as those services >> and *any data used for those services are kept separate from the >> Clearinghouse database*.” >> >> >> >> Thus, as I mentioned on the call, a simple solution is that we recommend >> “other marks that constitute intellectual property (under 3.2.2 and 3.6)” >> currently in the Trademark Clearinghouse must be placed into a separate >> ancillary database by the operator and not in the Trademark Clearinghouse. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> * On Behalf Of *Tushnet, >> Rebecca >> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:24 PM >> *To:* claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi(a)gmail.com>; Corwin, Philip < >> pcorwin(a)verisign.com> >> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8 >> >> >> >> *◄External Email►* - From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org >> >> >> >> I'm still quite factually confused by this proposal. "Accepted in the >> Clearinghouse" until now has meant "gets Claims and is eligible for Sunrise >> upon proof of use." It appears to me that this is proposing a nontrivial >> technical change (at the very least the implementation of a new coding >> category, which will have to be retrofitted to existing entries), without >> evidence either of its need or its feasibility. >> >> >> >> Relatedly: If GIs are to be treated so differently, why put them in the >> Clearinghouse, given that there is consensus that they shouldn't be used >> for Claims or Sunrise? Kathy's clarifying language allows for registries >> etc. to adopt various business models and for Deloitte and other operators >> to run systems that facilitate those business models, including the ones >> Claudio hypothesizes. (And I'm not sure we should hand Deloitte an extra >> business that would make competition in the market for providing additional >> services less likely.) >> >> >> >> >> >> Rebecca Tushnet >> >> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School >> 703 593 6759 >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of claudio >> di gangi <ipcdigangi(a)gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:38 PM >> *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> >> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8 >> >> >> >> thanks, Phil. Very helpful as always. >> >> >> >> I see your point that proposal #1 and #2 overlap, in the sense that they >> both deal with whether GIs should be recorded in the TMCH. My proposal (#3) >> integrates the other two proposals. >> >> >> >> My concern during the call was that I felt a premature signal being >> expressed that agreement was being quickly being reached >> after several members spoke (and I was one of them), while several other >> members asked clarifying questions. I may be mistaken, but don't recall >> Jason or Rebecca objecting to the thoughts I expressed during discussion on >> proposal #1. >> >> >> >> If I am mistaken, and there was a meaningfully larger list of proponents >> for proposal #1 expressed on the call, I am happy to be corrected - please >> let me know. >> >> >> >> From my perspective, the majority of members did not express a position >> while the discussion was taking place, so I was left confused under what >> basis that statement that consensus was reached was based upon. >> >> >> >> This is also why I recently expressed not having the benefit of the >> informal poll that you conducted two weeks ago. Can we please do this >> tomorrow to get a better sense of where folks stand? >> >> >> >> On this same line of reasoning, I was concerned that we did not have full >> participation on the last week's call (where any registries and registrars >> on the call?). Moreover, I indicated last week that I had off-line >> discussions with WG members who expressed support for my suggested >> approach, but were not able to join the call, so I was hoping to hear from >> them on the list prior to Wednesday. >> >> >> >> The transcript and recording were posted by Julie on Friday, 13 Sept. so >> members did not really have much time (Friday and Monday) to reply with >> input before things (I personally feel) got somewhat short-cut this morning >> with the posting that expressed here is the consensus view of the WG, along >> with the associated implementation text. >> >> >> >> My concern when this occurs is it changes the dynamic about how members >> feel about weighing-in and 'going against the thread' so to speak, and also >> may create confusion about the accurate state of play. >> >> >> >> In terms of substance and to clarify, my proposal is based on finding >> common ground and compromise that integrates the two proposals, as per the >> following: >> >> >> >> 1) Going forward, GI are accepted in the Clearinghouse or ONE main >> ancillary database that all registries/registrars can connect to (which >> potentially can be integrated with the main external GI database that >> exists, with Deloitte performing validations); >> >> >> >> 2) GIs are NOT protected during the Sunrise or Claims period, which >> remain for trademarks; which was something that we established during the >> review of Sunrise and Claims. >> >> >> >> 3) the protection of GIs are NOT mandatory for any new gTLD registry >> >> >> >> 4) for new gTLD registries that choose and desire to protect GIs (as the >> current rules permit) because of local laws and/or other reasons, they are >> protected during the Limited Registration Period, to help prevent abusive >> registrations before General Availability. >> >> >> >> The rationale for this approach is that GIs are one of the three major >> forms of IP (patents, trademarks, and GIs) and function as source >> identifiers for goods and services in a manner that is similar >> to trademarks (and can be registered as domains in the same manner). For >> example, GIs are protected in the United States (under the TRIPS agreement) >> as collective or certification marks, think FLORIDA ORANGES or IDAHO >> POTATOES. >> >> >> >> But in other countries, outside of the United States, they are protected >> under local laws that place them on a separate registry, apart from the >> trademark register. >> >> >> >> Hope this helps clarify status, and thanks for everyone's ongoing >> contributions. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Claudio >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:34 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> >> wrote: >> >> Claudio— >> >> >> >> This message reflects the views of the co-chairs. >> >> >> >> Q8 and all of its related proposals were extensively discussed on the >> September 4th call. The meeting on 11 September was a continued >> discussion on Q8 and Q7 in case there were further proposals, and the major >> focus was on Q7 as we had run out of time on the prior call and a new >> modified proposal had been submitted for discussion. >> >> >> >> As regards Q 8, all of the first three proposals converge in that they >> would limit the registration of GIs in the TMCH to “marks” of some sort, >> whether trademarks or collective marks or certification marks; there also >> seemed to be some recognition and agreement that GIs that did not >> constitute “marks” could be recorded in an ancillary database for the >> purpose of assisting certain new gTLDs that recognized and provided some >> additional consideration to them. It appeared to the co-chairs that >> restricting TMCH recordation of GIs to those that constituted “marks” had >> fairly broad support among WG members participating on the calls. >> >> >> >> In regard to your fourth proposal -- “(1) Add the consideration of GIs to >> the policy review of the Sunrise and Claims services; and (2) withhold >> final consideration of the current TMCH proposals relating to GIs, until we >> conclude the policy review of the new gTLD RPMs (as described in the >> Charter).” – the Sunrise and Claims reviews have been concluded, and we are >> now wrapping up (concluding) our review of the new gTLD RPMs. So this >> proposal no longer seems timely or relevant; but if you wish to amend it >> and make a specific proposal for the treatment of GIs in the TMCH, tomorrow >> is the time to make it. >> >> >> >> Finally, as regards your proposal that we withhold a decision until >> Deloitte participated in a call on this subject, we see no reason to do so >> as there is no indication that Deloitte has changed its practice in regard >> to GI recordation since it wrote to the WG two years ago. >> >> >> >> In conclusion, we intend to finish the WG’s consideration of Q8 tomorrow >> but will facilitate discussion of an amended proposal from you if you wish >> to offer one. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Brian >> >> Philip >> >> Kathy >> >> >> >> >> >> 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(a)icann.org> *On Behalf Of *claudio >> di gangi >> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 11:22 AM >> *To:* Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> >> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8 >> >> >> >> Kathy, all, >> >> >> >> Last week, we spent the first full hour of the call discussing the first >> Question 8 proposal, and zero minutes on the second proposal on Question #8 >> (In comparison we spent much time discussing both proposals for question >> #7). >> >> >> >> I am aware that some members spoke in support of the first proposal (I >> was on audio only), but do not know how many, while some others did not >> speak in support, and that we agreed to spend this full week to solicit WG >> members views on the list before moving forward. This week has not yet >> concluded (we have through today), yet new language is being posted below >> now for consideration. >> >> >> >> A few additional points, the week prior Phil conducted an informal poll >> using the Zoom room functionality, which helped provide transparency on WG >> members views for consensus building, which was not done last week on >> Question #8. >> >> >> >> Nor has there been an effort to bring the various proponents together to >> reach a compromise position, which we recently did in the sprint of the >> consensus-building process on Question #7, the design mark topic. So I’m >> not sure why question #8 is being treated so differently in all these >> various ways (as described above) compared to Question #7. >> >> >> >> Can someone kindly shed some light on this disparity in treatment between >> the way we are approaching question 7 and question 8? >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Claudio >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> >> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Last week we found considerable overlap and common ground on Q#8. I >> promised to circulate language sharing that agreement and slightly refining >> existing proposals. >> >> Q#8: >> >> 3.2 The standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse are: >> >> 3.2.1 Nationally or regionally registered word marks from all >> jurisdictions. >> >> 3.2.2 Any word mark that has been validated through a court of law or >> other judicial proceeding. >> >> 3.2.3 Any word marks specified in and protected by a statute or treaty *as >> trademarks *[1] in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the >> Clearinghouse for inclusion. >> >> 3.2.4 Other marks that constitute intellectual property. [see below] >> >> 3.2.5 Protections afforded to trademark registrations do not extend to >> applications for registrations, marks. >> >> [1] *By "trademarks," the WG means "trademarks, service marks, >> certification marks and collective marks."* >> >> For purposes of clarity, separate or ancillary databases of the Trademark >> Clearinghouse Provider (or another provider) may include other marks, but >> those databases should not be used for Sunrise or Trademark Claims Notices >> under the RPMs. Registries may use those separate or ancillary databases to >> provide additional services but are not required to do so under the RPMs. >> >> (Appropriate corresponding changes will be percolated across the *Trademark >> Clearinghouse* Applicant Guidebook) >> >> ----------------- >> >> Best, Kathy >> >> >> Confidentiality Notice >> >> This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to >> which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is >> proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from >> disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to >> read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If >> you have received this message in error, please notify the sender >> immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and >> delete all copies of this message. >> > > _______________________________________________ > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing listGNSO-RPM-WG@icann.orghttps://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(a)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.

1 0

FINAL DRAFT: TM Claims Sub Team Status Check Document/Report to Full WG
by Julie Hedlund July 2, 2019

July 2, 2019

Dear TM Claims Sub Team members, On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, please see the attached Final Draft Status Check document in which staff has incorporated all of the revisions resulting from the meetings at ICANN65. The document will be the Sub Team’s report for the full WG to consider at its meeting on Wednesday, 10 July. In order to ensure that staff has accurately captured the revisions to the Status Check document agreed to by the Sub Team, staff has reviewed the transcripts from the meetings. However, please respond to the Sub Team list by Friday, 05 July at 1600 UTC, if you note any revisions we may have missed, indicating the specific text that should be revised, including the proposed edits. Staff plans to send the report from the Sub Team to the full WG by Monday, 08 July. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs

1 0

Update(2) of Status Check Doc/Slides re: TM Claims Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details
by Julie Hedlund June 26, 2019

June 26, 2019

Dear TM Claims Sub Team members, Please see the further updated Status Check Document and Slides based on the Sub Team meeting held on Tuesday, 25 June. These are the slides that will be used for the update that Martin will provide at the full WG meeting tomorrow, 27 July at 10:30 to 12:00 local Marrakech time. Following tomorrow’s meeting, the final draft of the Status Check Document will be sent to the Sub Team on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs. Per the Work Plan/Timeline, the Sub Team will need to approve the Status Check document on its email distribution list prior to it being sent to the full WG as the Sub Team’s report on the culmination of its work. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs From: Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 3:08 PM To: "gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Update of Status Check Doc/Slides re: TM Claims Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details Dear TM Claims Sub Team members, Rebecca Tushnet has suggested a minor, but helpful, clarification to the answer to Charter questions 2(d). It is the Co-Chair’s view that the suggested change actually better reflects the Sub Team’s discussion and agreement. The original answer was, “Some Sub Team members believe that some TLDs, not including legacy TLDs, should be exempt from the Claims RPM.” But she pointed out that for clarity, there was no proposal to extend Claims to legacy TLDs, so that language should not be included. Here is her suggested revised language, “Some Sub Team members believe that some future TLDs should be exempt from the Claims RPM.” (The remaining language in the answer doesn’t change.) This change is reflected in the attached revised Status Check document and slides. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs From: Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 4:11 PM To: "gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Draft Slides re: TM Claims Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details Dear TM Claims Sub Team members, Further to the message below, please see the attached draft slides for the Sub Team update to the full WG during the meeting on Thursday, 27 June. These slides are based on the revised version of the status check document. They will be updated as necessary following the discussion during the TM Claims Sub Team meeting at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs From: Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:06 AM To: "gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] TM Claims Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details Dear TM Claims Sub Team members, On behalf of Martin Silva and Roger Carney, Sub Team Co-Chairs, please see the attached revised version of the status check document in preparation for ICANN65 and the meeting details below. This version of the status check document will provide the framework for discussion at the Sub Team meeting. Sub Team members are requested to review the content prior to the meeting and come prepared to finalize the answers to charter questions, preliminary recommendations, and questions for community input at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Tuesday, 25 June: TM Claims Sub Team: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058263 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Sunrise Sub Team: 13:00 - 15:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058264 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

REMINDER: TM Claims Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details
by Julie Hedlund June 24, 2019

June 24, 2019

Dear TM Claims Sub Team members, On behalf of Martin Silva and Roger Carney, TM Claims Sub Team Co-Chairs, we would like to bring to your attention this important reminder: REMINDER: The attached version of the status check document is the version that will provide the framework for discussion at the Sub Team meeting at ICANN65 tomorrow (see details below). Sub Team members are requested to review this document prior to the meeting and come prepared to finalize the answers to charter questions, preliminary recommendations, and questions for community input at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Tuesday, 25 June: TM Claims Sub Team: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058263 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Sunrise Sub Team: 13:00 - 15:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058264 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

Update of Status Check Doc/Slides re: TM Claims Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details
by Julie Hedlund June 22, 2019

June 22, 2019

Dear TM Claims Sub Team members, Rebecca Tushnet has suggested a minor, but helpful, clarification to the answer to Charter questions 2(d). It is the Co-Chair’s view that the suggested change actually better reflects the Sub Team’s discussion and agreement. The original answer was, “Some Sub Team members believe that some TLDs, not including legacy TLDs, should be exempt from the Claims RPM.” But she pointed out that for clarity, there was no proposal to extend Claims to legacy TLDs, so that language should not be included. Here is her suggested revised language, “Some Sub Team members believe that some future TLDs should be exempt from the Claims RPM.” (The remaining language in the answer doesn’t change.) This change is reflected in the attached revised Status Check document and slides. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs From: Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 4:11 PM To: "gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Draft Slides re: TM Claims Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details Dear TM Claims Sub Team members, Further to the message below, please see the attached draft slides for the Sub Team update to the full WG during the meeting on Thursday, 27 June. These slides are based on the revised version of the status check document. They will be updated as necessary following the discussion during the TM Claims Sub Team meeting at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs From: Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:06 AM To: "gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] TM Claims Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details Dear TM Claims Sub Team members, On behalf of Martin Silva and Roger Carney, Sub Team Co-Chairs, please see the attached revised version of the status check document in preparation for ICANN65 and the meeting details below. This version of the status check document will provide the framework for discussion at the Sub Team meeting. Sub Team members are requested to review the content prior to the meeting and come prepared to finalize the answers to charter questions, preliminary recommendations, and questions for community input at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Tuesday, 25 June: TM Claims Sub Team: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058263 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Sunrise Sub Team: 13:00 - 15:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058264 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

Draft Slides re: TM Claims Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details
by Julie Hedlund June 20, 2019

June 20, 2019

Dear TM Claims Sub Team members, Further to the message below, please see the attached draft slides for the Sub Team update to the full WG during the meeting on Thursday, 27 June. These slides are based on the revised version of the status check document. They will be updated as necessary following the discussion during the TM Claims Sub Team meeting at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs From: Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:06 AM To: "gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] TM Claims Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details Dear TM Claims Sub Team members, On behalf of Martin Silva and Roger Carney, Sub Team Co-Chairs, please see the attached revised version of the status check document in preparation for ICANN65 and the meeting details below. This version of the status check document will provide the framework for discussion at the Sub Team meeting. Sub Team members are requested to review the content prior to the meeting and come prepared to finalize the answers to charter questions, preliminary recommendations, and questions for community input at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Tuesday, 25 June: TM Claims Sub Team: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058263 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Sunrise Sub Team: 13:00 - 15:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058264 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

TM Claims Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details
by Julie Hedlund June 19, 2019

June 19, 2019

Dear TM Claims Sub Team members, On behalf of Martin Silva and Roger Carney, Sub Team Co-Chairs, please see the attached revised version of the status check document in preparation for ICANN65 and the meeting details below. This version of the status check document will provide the framework for discussion at the Sub Team meeting. Sub Team members are requested to review the content prior to the meeting and come prepared to finalize the answers to charter questions, preliminary recommendations, and questions for community input at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Tuesday, 25 June: TM Claims Sub Team: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058263 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Sunrise Sub Team: 13:00 - 15:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058264 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

Recordings, attendance & Zoom chat / RPMs Sub Team for Trademark Claims Data Review call on Wednesday, 12 June 2019 at 17:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew June 12, 2019

June 12, 2019

Dear All, Please find the attendance attached to this email, and links to the audio recording, Zoom recording (audio, visual, rough transcript) and Zoom chat below for the RPMs Sub Team for Trademark Claims Data Review call held on Wednesday, 12 June 2019 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/s4yjBg Audio recording: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/audio/audio-rpm-trad… Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab): https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/0FtoA6hKsimCmxbc1BFH3LEnyRwQKeCrtP6uk… Zoom Chat: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/download/2W8lICWumBd3VPQQ2jABdtXJo36naGG_Pf… <https://participate.icann.org/p1rt07fe5bt/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=1e3c883343392133…>The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://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-rpm-trademark/ Wiki page for group: https://community.icann.org/x/34IWBg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] [HOMEWORK] Due Wednesday, 12 June 17:00 UTC & Proposal Agenda
by Ariel Liang June 7, 2019

June 7, 2019

Correction – Subject Line should be “[HOMEWORK] Due Wednesday, 12 June 17:00 UTC & Proposal Agenda” Have a great weekend everyone! From: Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 5:04 PM To: "gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] [HOMEWORK] Due Wednesday, 12 June 17:00 UTC & Proposal Agenda Dear TM Claims Sub Team members, 1. Homework The TM Claims Sub Team is tasked to review the updated Status Check document (see details in “Resource”) by focusing on the draft text for: * Q4 (the updated text include proposed answers and proposed questions for community input from the Q4 Google Doc [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>) * Q1 (the question has been well discussed and the updated text incorporate input from the Sub Team) * Q3 (the question has been well discussed and the updated text incorporate input from the Sub Team) 2. Proposed Agenda for Next Meeting Here is a proposed agenda for the meeting on Wednesday, 12 June at 17:00 UTC: 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review timeline/work plan 3. Discuss proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for Q4 4. Time permitting, discuss *final input* for the updated text for Q1 & Q3 5. AOB 3. Resource Status Check (as of 07 June 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Stat… Compared to the 17 May 2019 version, this updated version has the following changes: * Added a new Table 1 that provides a snapshot of the Sub Team’s deliberations on all questions, highlighting “open items” based on staff’s preliminary assessment * In Table 2, included draft text for Q2 and Q5 based on transcripts, chats, discussion thread comments * Updated text for Q1, Q3, and Q4, incorporating Sub Team’s input provided during meetings on 22 May, 29 May, and 5 June, as well as input from discussion threads and Q4 Google Doc * Added a new column for proposed question for community input (if any) * Per Sub Team’s suggestion, removed all discussions/debates/deliberations, particularly for questions that the Sub Team has diverging opinions * To facilitate discussions of Q4, posted Sub Team members’ proposed answers and proposed questions for community input from the Q4 Google Doc * Updated color coding: Grey text – discussions during meetings; green text – excerpts from discussion threads; blue text – excerpts from Q4 Google Doc; red text – staff notes. All colored text are deliberations, which will NOT be included in the “status check” document when it is finalized * Updated Table 3 that provides a snapshot of Sub Team’s review of individual proposals, based on Co-Chairs’ preliminary assessment Summary Table (as of 17 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summ… * This document is complementary to the Status Check document by providing details on data and additional context. * Compared to the 16 April 2019 version, the current version contains the same proposed answers and preliminary recommendations as those in the Status Check document. * It also includes more details with respect to the Sub Team’s review of individual proposals by 14 May 2019. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Google Doc for Claims Q4 (created as of 28 May 2019, closed for further comments on 3 June 2019): https://docs.google.com/document/d/10quBC1BnuIM_wOyEXH7TttNWEOrDTiPNscgSBd7… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> This Google Doc was created to facilitate Sub Team’s discussion for Q4 and review the redline suggestions. It has been closed for comments since 3 June 2019 COB. Individual Proposals: Relevant to the Agreed Trademark Claims Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Trademark Claims Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team in the homework assignment: * Proposal #1 (Q2): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf… * Proposal #5 (Q1): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%235.pdf… * Proposal #6 (Q1): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%236.pdf… * Proposal #11: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2311.pd… * Proposal #12 (Q2): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2312.pd… 4. Documents Wiki Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of all discussion threads, all versions of the summary table, and other working documents of the Sub Team: https://community.icann.org/x/9YIWBg. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0