September 2016 - GNSO-RPM-WG

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
by J. Scott Evans Sept. 26, 2016

Sept. 26, 2016

Well said Phil. J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, Domains & Marketing | Adobe 345 Park Avenue San Jose, CA 95110 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 8:33 AM To: "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver(a)timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>>, Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26(a)law.georgetown.edu<mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives Thanks for your input, Bradley and Rebecca. Here is my personal view at this time, subject to further discussion with the other Co-Chairs and the WG members— The TMCH is a means to an end. It is a database of trademarks meeting certain minimum levels of verified quality. While the TMCH is regarded as a RPM it provides no protection in and of itself – the protections come from two related RPMs, Sunrise Registrations and the TM Claims Notice (recognizing that certain other private protection measures, such as Donuts’ DPML, are also tied to TMCH registration). The protection offered by Sunrise Registration is to give rights holders’ the ability to secure a domain in a new gTLD that is an exact match of their TM prior to general availability of registrations, and thereby eliminate the ability of a third party with no legitimate rights or interest to secure the same domain for infringing purposes. If that domain name has been designated as a Premium one by the registry operator then pricing can clearly have some practical impact on the availability of the protection, with the degree of impact varying with the price point. Taking an extreme hypothetical, if initial registration of a particular Premium domain were set by the RO at $50,000 then the rights holder might naturally feel that the protection held out by the availability of Sunrise registration has been substantially diluted by the pricing, and decide that it would be prudent to wait for general availability and try to secure the domain then, or decline to register at all and simply file a URS or UDRP action if another party secures the domain and uses it for infringing purposes. And, as we know, the feeling among rights holders that Sunrise Registrations are being used to unreasonably exploit them increases when there is a very wide difference between the price set for the Sunrise period versus that in general availability, or if the Premium domain is a unique non-dictionary term associated with a company or brand. But is pricing within the remit of our WG, and if not is it within the remit of the parallel Subsequent Procedures WG? I will not answer the latter question because we have members and Co-Chairs of that WG participating in this one and they are quite capable of sharing their views. My own view is that it is probably not within the remit of this WG to analyze or change the “hands off” pricing policy established for the new gTLD program, which has led to a very broad spectrum of registry pricing and business models (it seems to be more of a subsequent procedures program and applicant guidebook matter, rather than a direct RPM concern) . However, I think it may well be within the remit of this WG to analyze and comment upon the impact of certain registry’s Sunrise pricing models on the effectiveness of Sunrise Registrations as an RPM, and it may also be within the remit of this WG to recommend a system through which rights holders can register concerns about certain registry pricing practices that dilute the RPM’s effectiveness (how the RO or ICANN should respond to such concerns is a separate issue). I hope those remarks spur some further discussion within this WG. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Silver, Bradley Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, then this is antithetical to the TMCH’s primary goal to provide protection for verified right holders. From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives Hello, all. On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is within the remit of this WG – and the broader question of what the purpose of our TMCH review is. There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH’s effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what? Here are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or deterred. If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly hampering the others. Yours, Rebecca Tushnet Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 ================================================================= Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices(a)timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com> ================================================================= ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. ================================================================= ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16 ________________________________ <ACL>

2 1

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
by Paul Keating Sept. 23, 2016

Sept. 23, 2016

Jeff, While certainly unseemly, is this really something we need to deal with ? After all, the trademark holder could easily have anyone buy the domain and subsequently transfer it to the company. Again, we need to refocus at the 50,000 foot level. PRK From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 6:37 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26(a)law.georgetown.edu> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives > We also need to look at examples out there where it is not just premium > pricing of domains, but there was at least one case (.feedback) that said if > you are a trademark owner (whether or not purchased in the Sunrise or after), > the price is $X, but if you are not the trademark owner, then your price is > $Y, where $Y was thousands of dollars less. > > See: > http://domainincite.com/19560-forget-sucks-feedback-will-drive-trademark-ow… > s-nuts-all-over-again and > http://domainincite.com/19615-feedback-regs-fox-trademark-to-itself-during-… > rise > > I believe the policies of .sucks and .feedback need to be discussed. It is > one thing to have premium pricing on a name whereby any purchaser of the name > would have to pay the same price (even if high); but, it is another thing to > have different prices for a name depending on who the purchaser is > (discrimination amongst purchasers). That I do believe is in our scope. > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Senior Vice President |Valideus USA| Com Laude USA > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or > jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > T: +1.703.635.7514 > M: +1.202.549.5079 > @Jintlaw > > > > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Phil Corwin > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:20 PM > To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26(a)law.georgetown.edu> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives > > ³If post-Sunrise registrations of expensive domain names have led to > infringement, I hope we will be able to collect evidence of that.² > > Agreed that we should seek this type of data, certainly anecdotal and more > comprehensive if available. > > > Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal > Virtualaw LLC > 1155 F Street, NW > Suite 1050 > Washington, DC 20004 > 202-559-8597/Direct > 202-559-8750/Fax > 202-255-6172/Cell > > Twitter: @VlawDC > > "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey > > > From: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu] > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:16 PM > To: Phil Corwin > Cc: Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: TMCH review objectives > > > And is the additional system cost (one component of effectiveness) of > individualized review of pricing worth this hypothetical increased risk of > later infringement? If post-Sunrise registrations of expensive domain names > have led to infringement, I hope we will be able to collect evidence of that. > Likewise with the hypothetical effect of encountering an unregistered domain > in a new gTLD. In an age of search engines, I thought we had gotten past the > idea that a consumer would type in a domain name and then give up if no > website, or a nonconfusing but non-trademark owner website, resolves. I also > highly doubt there's evidence that consumers think less of a trademark owner > for not registering every variation. > > Rebecca Tushnet > > Georgetown Law > > > > Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. > > > On Sep 23, 2016, at 11:39 AM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: >> >> I believe I just addressed that question in the email I posted if >> unreasonably high sunrise pricing deters a rights holder from registering a >> domain corresponding to a verified TM registered in the TMCH then it may be >> registered in the general availability period by an infringer, which in turn >> imposes a variety of costs on the TM owner (including those of bringing a >> subsequent URS, UDRP, or judicial action) and also creates the possibility of >> confusion and harm for the general public. >> >> This is not to say that all Premium pricing is unreasonable, as it is >> generally recognized that certain words and terms have inherent additional >> value in the DNS context it really requires a case by case analysis. >> >> >> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal >> Virtualaw LLC >> 1155 F Street, NW >> Suite 1050 >> Washington, DC 20004 >> 202-559-8597/Direct >> 202-559-8750/Fax >> 202-255-6172/Cell >> >> Twitter: @VlawDC >> >> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >> >> >> From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On >> Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet >> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM >> To: Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives >> >> TMCH¹s goal of ³protection² against what, though? How does high pricing >> contribute to trademark infringement? High pricing may deter purchases of >> domain names, no doubt, but with what result for the system overall? >> >> >> Rebecca Tushnet >> Georgetown Law >> 703 593 6759 >> >> >> From: Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com] >> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM >> To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >> Subject: RE: TMCH review objectives >> >> I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of >> effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to >> target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, >> then this is antithetical to the TMCH¹s primary goal to provide protection >> for verified right holders. >> >> >> From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On >> Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet >> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM >> To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives >> >> Hello, all. On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names >> during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is >> within the remit of this WG and the broader question of what the purpose of >> our TMCH review is. There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH¹s >> effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what? Here >> are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the >> system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that >> ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing >> the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or >> deterred. If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, >> then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to >> improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly >> hampering the others. >> >> Yours, >> Rebecca Tushnet >> >> >> Rebecca Tushnet >> Georgetown Law >> 703 593 6759 >> ================================================================= >> Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to >> click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions >> regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT >> Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices(a)timewarner.com >> >> >> ================================================================= >> >> ================================================================= >> This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the >> use of the >> addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader >> of this message >> is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to >> deliver it to the intended >> recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, >> printing, forwarding, >> or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action >> in reliance on >> the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended >> recipient or those to whom >> he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this >> communication in >> error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message >> and any copies >> from your computer or storage system. Thank you. >> ================================================================= >> >> >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16 > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16 > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

2 1

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 21 September 2016
by Terri Agnew Sept. 22, 2016

Sept. 22, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 21:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/sAO4Aw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-21sep16-en.mp3 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhiOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 21 September 2016: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group held on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 21:00 UTC Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Philip Corwin:Hello. I'm dialing in Vaibhav Aggarwal:'Morning folks Kathy:Hi All! Paul McGrady:Good M/A/E! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Greeting all, apologies for being late. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Indeed, it is sixty days notice either way. Marina Lewis:Hi all...sorry to be joining late. George Kirikos:Not sixty days notice, but 60 days minimum total period. Kurt Pritz:@ George: Did I say "60 days notice"? George Kirikos:@Kurt: I was responding to Phil Marano's statement in the chat. Paul Tattersfield:Are registry reserved names excluded from a sunrise period? And if so do the reserved names have to be related to purposes or running a registry (other than ICANN mandated reserved names?) Kurt Pritz:ok - whew Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):what was intended for protection of local small TMs who were not included into TMCH? Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Put another way, either way, folks are aware of the sunrise period for sixty days. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Paul, for GEOs we had to reserve things like POLICE for local police depts George Kirikos:I think the Calzone.org had a calendar of new gTLD program "events" --- one can probably go back and create the data (or just ask the registries directly) re: ALP / QLP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):QLP of 100 names for cities of few K of street names was not enough Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ALP did not work at all ... remember .madrid Kathy:For these slides, can Staff take control of slides? David Tait:Kathy, Phil asked for them to be scrollable Paul Tattersfield:thanks Maxim Kathy:David, I thought it might help us read the slide... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):PPT needs to be reformatted (smaller fonts?) David Tait:"Identical matches" means a domain name label is an identical match to the trademark, meaning that the label must consist of the complete and identical textual elements of the trademark in accordance with section 4.2.1 of the Clearinghouse Guidelines. For example, if the Trademark Holder's trademark is AB, then the domain name label that is applicable must be AB for it to be deemed an Identical Match. If the Trademark Holder's Trademark label is èé, than the identical label is èé and not ee."Premium names" - a registry operator may reserve certain premium names for later release (after the Sunrise Period) at its sole discretion. Registry operators may classify generic terms as premium names, and, in that event, such names are not available for registration during the Sunrise period even if they are the subject of a trademark record."Reserved names" - a registry operator may reserve a domain name from registration as allowed by Specification 9, Registry Operator Code of Conduct, Section 1 David Tait:1(b), of the New gTLD Registry Agreement."Landrush"- Land Rush is the commencement of the "go live" period of a new TLD launch where the registry begins accepting live domain registrations from registrants through registrars. Paul Tattersfield:text is now cut off here as well was ok before David Tait:"Trademark Clearing House-verified trademarks" means all marks accepted and verified by the TMCH. These will be accepted from (i) nationally or regionally or registered trademarks; (ii) court-validated marks; and (iii) marks protected by statute or treaty. The verified trademark data will support both trademark claims and sunrise services required for all new gTLDs. In addition, the Clearinghouse may accept and verify other types of marks upon the request of registries. Mary Wong:Sorry for the formatting/display issues David Maher:APOlogies for being late David Tait:"Sunrise Period" - a pre-launch phase providing trademark holders the opportunity to register domain names in a gTLD before registration is made generally available to the public. David Tait:"Sunrise pricing practices" - the current TMCH fee structure includes Sunrise services for all new gTLD Sunrise periods, not just one. David Tait:"Sunrise process" - A process in which owners of Legal Rights have the opportunity to register domain names before the Landrush process open to the public. Registries that used a Sunrise Process identified the Legal Rights on which a Sunrise Process registration could be based. Greg Shatan:Which brings up back to do, do, do, do. Greg Shatan:up = us. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):QUESTION: Please add questions of ALP, QLP where these periods in need of review? Rebecca Tushnet:Are we going to address TMCH eligibility for marks separately? Josh Partington:Hi all, sorry to join late Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Rebecca, this slide show is just about sunrise (we discussed the TMCH as an entity last week). We have a whole list of charter questions regarding the TMCH apart from sunrise. :) David Tait:We're trying to put up a better version George Kirikos:It seems that most of the sunrise periods are producing fewer than 1000 registrations. Is it really "working" as intended? Rebecca Tushnet:Thanks, Kristine--I must have missed the separate questions there. Paul Keating:Sorry for being late. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):why the rights are to be extended beyond what is protected by law? George Kirikos:If "variants" were allowed, someone with a low value mark of "Appl" might try to register the superior domain "variant" of "Apple". George Kirikos:Flickr ---> Flicker Greg Shatan:You can't register a domain for a TM=50 string in Sunrise. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):no it is too easy to be gamed George Kirikos:Agreed, too easy to be gamed. Paul Keating:yes, they sh ould NOT. The tm registration during sunrise is registration. The notice is corrective/preventative. Edward Morris:(on adobe only). Is it possible to expand the charter questions to include some of the underlying TMCH questions concerning TM scope in the sunrise period? Two I have in mind: 1. When the TM registered in the TMCH database is a generic or descriptive word, and sunrise is used for registering that mark as a domain name completely unrelated to the goods and service category of TM protection, is that fair for other/future/potential DN registrants. 2. (and related) should Sunrise rights be limited to the categories of goods and services of the TM? (still trying to get on audio - apologies) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Edward, nodoby reads the chat Greg Shatan:How would you game that? You need to win a domain name dispute in order to get a TM+50 TMCH regn. Marina Lewis:I don't think TM owners should be the ones to register multiple variations of their marks - I think the TMCH should expand the claims service to include near-identical domains. George Kirikos:Are we seeing more UDRP/URS filings from companies that didn't register in sunrise periods? Or are they from companies that did register in sunrise, but then the variants got registered? (we'd need to compile data, and cross-reference their registrations) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it is possible to grab mark via affiliated company and to go to the local court Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Maxim, we do!!! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):hmm ... my question on QLPs ALPs was not read :) Mary Wong:@Ed, that's one thing the co-chairs are asking that WG members do (review the Charter questions). Your suggestions - like the last bullet point on the next-to-last slide (which was a suggestion from the co-chairs) - can be added to the list for consideration by the WG. Edward Morris:@Maxim. As our wonderful audio service is not working here in northern England at the moment I hope that is not true! Greg Shatan:Maxim, you have a rich and vivid imagination. Kathy:@David and Mary: we are seeing an array of questions in the chat room - can you add them to our Notes and Actions? David Tait:Ed, can we do a dial out to you? George Kirikos:Raise your hand, to join the queue. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):not able to speak (1am) Marina Lewis:In my experience, most TM owners aren't interested in acquiring domains during sunrise for their own use. It's usually a cost-benefit issue: is it cheaper to register this domain or fight to wrestle it out of the hands of a cyberaquatter? If the answer is yes, then it make sense to register the domain defensively. Edward Morris:@Phil. Technical problems here: If you could consider my question as well I'd be greatful. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):yes bradley silver:+1 to Marina's response Mary Wong:Yes we are noting the additional suggested questions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Greg , cost of litigation in some countries is lower than UDRP Edward Morris:@ Mary. Thank you! Mary Wong:We have information on which registries offer a QLP but don't have data on how much they are used - for this we will have to approach each individual registry operator. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:I note that ALP and QLP are not really RPMs. They offer the registry a chance to promote the TLD. Not to counter Maxim's question, but just a thought... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):QLP is an addendum to RPMs George Kirikos:@Marina: plus, a markholder will also need to assess whether the damage from the cybersquatting is too minor to litigate or defensively register. Given the lack of traffic most of those domains receive, it's likely not worth pursuing most of them (i.e. minor irritants). Paul Keating:Phil, I t hink he is referencing post registration use. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ALP was intended to be a way for GEOs and alike to have special rules (for example for protection of small local business too in addition of TMCH) George Kirikos:If it's a US TM holder, it'd be smarter to use the ACPA and seek $100K in statutory damages, rather than waste time on URS/UDRP. Do it a few times, and that'll deter cybersquatting. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Maxim, I don't disagree. I just note that neither one is there to protect brands. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Kristine , the point is , we review things relevant to RPMs Marina Lewis:@George - agreed, with the additional comment that this is often an unknown at the time of registration. The TM owner has no way of knowing whether the domain will be used for a pay-per-click site or (God forbid) a child porn site. Sometimes it's safer to just cough up the money for the registration fee. Scott R. Austin:Is there an equivalent of a "legislative history" of the concerns or business goals for registries that the LRP, ALP and QLP were created to address? George Kirikos:Right, Marina. I think that's why some markholders see the potential scaremongering as a "protection racket", i.e. "if you don't register, then ......." Edward Morris:Thanks Kathy. George Kirikos:Do we have anyone here from CSC or MarkMonitor? It seems they drive a lot of the sunrise registrations, so might have insights to share. Marina Lewis:@George +1 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):do we see situations with TMCH entries for companies who made only one shipment to be acredited as gaming?(proof of use) Paul McGrady:@Kathy, what if it were for a site for presidential vehicles? I was just at the Henry Ford Museum and there is a huge display. :) George Kirikos:(there are a few other "corporate" registrars, but those 2 are the largest I think) Netnames, and a few others also might have insights. Kathy:Henry Ford - that's a good example too! Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):@Paul or for a president's day sale :) Kathy:@Paul: I think this is a very important area for discussion. Paul Keating:@Phil. I think that a "use" requirement should be incorporated to preserve a sunrise registration. Paul Keating:ALSO, what eveidenc eof "actual use" does the TMCH require? Edward Morris:Thnks Phil. Kathy:@Paul, is this a question you would like to add to our questions list? Mary Wong:@PaulK - thisis what the TMCH says about proof of use: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademark-2Dclearin… Paul McGrady:@Kathy - interesting for sure. would be more straighforward if there was a GPML (since we are looking at flaws in the current system). :) George Kirikos:It shouldn't apply to "all gTLDs", given there's no notion of "premium names" in com/net/org, etc. Paul Keating:I am fine with it being a question to be considered Paul Keating:I do not however feel it should be chainged Paul Keating:VERY good quesetion Edward Morris:Agree with Rebecca. Marina Lewis:Re Rebecca's question, I think "rights" as used in RPM does specifically refer to IP rights, yes? Mary Wong:@Paul K - can you restate the question? Is it whether the use requirement should be reviewed? Kathy:@Mary, can we add PaulK's question regarding exploration into use and Rebecca's question on pricing and what rights it protects to our Notes and Actions for future evaluation? George Kirikos:If "Verizon.TLD" or "EXXON.TLD" were listed as premium domains, i.e. fanciful marks, then it's more likely to be abusive. Paul Tattersfield:depends on the strength of the business rather than the strength of the mark sometimes Paul Keating:@Paul, is that not the result of the trademark being a "generic" term? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Are we into requlation of pricing? I thought it is not regulated , at least ICANN says they are not into this business Mary Wong:@Kathy,@Paul K - can one of you restate Paul's question? Is it to review the use requirement, or something more specific about what is required to show proof of use Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):or apple? George Kirikos:Perhaps placing a cap on how many domains can be declared "premium" would reduce the potential for that abuse. Vaibhav Aggarwal:@Jeff Your voice is not clear Scott R. Austin:@Paul M +1 Mary Wong:@Paul M - short of searching a number of trademark databases and comparing them to each registry's list of premium names, how would we get the data? Kathy:@Mary: how about a general question asking the WG to further explore "use" and the types of proof used by the TMCH/Deloitted Vaibhav Aggarwal:As per Key Terms & Definitions - the price needs to be Defined too Vaibhav Aggarwal:@Rebeca Your example is not the right Comparison Vaibhav Aggarwal:Unresonable Pricing is definitly an Abuse of the System and poisiton. Infact it can be classified in Monopolistic Business Practices Vaibhav Aggarwal:+1 Phil George Kirikos:To the extent that a registry operator raises the registration price, it reduces the odds that anyone will register the domains (which means a cybersquatter won't grab them). Paul KEATING:gouged is not prevented. Vaibhav Aggarwal:As a TM owner I am authorised to get a Normal Domain Name Pricing George Kirikos:Although, in some sense the markholder might claim that it's now the registry itself that is being the "cybersquatter". Paul KEATING:so if a trademark registration with the PTO cost 10,000 it would be unfair?. Scott Harlan:Agree that it is relevant. There is also the issue of timing of the notification that a name is premium, which often occcured after a Sunrise order was placed and was close to the end of the relevant Sunrise Period. This either foreclosed the Sunrise period for those names or made it less effective. Paul KEATING:this issue is NOT resolved. Vaibhav Aggarwal:Yes they are Infriginng at least w.r.t. the to teh registered TMs Paul Tattersfield:Couldn't we just say that all sunrise names can not cost more than general release prices? George Kirikos:Some domains like Cars.blog are 6-figures per year, I believe. Vaibhav Aggarwal:+1 Marina Paul KEATING:no Paul, we cannot limit pricing. Terri Agnew:next call for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Groupis scheduled for Wednesday, 28 September 2016 at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes. George Kirikos:But, that's likely due to the inherent value of the term "cars", not some markholder for 'cars'. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Pricing aside, premium names tend to be registry reserved names, which are generally exempt from sunrise and claims services, depending on when it is released for registration per RPM Requirements Section 2.4.3. David Tait:That is correct David Tait:1600 UTC Vaibhav Aggarwal:Thanks Guys khouloud Dawahi:16utc George Kirikos:Bye everyone. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Scott Harlan:By "it" was referring to the issue of "premium names" Kathy:And TM Claims Overview next week Steve Levy:Thanks all! Vaibhav Aggarwal:How is the Asia Pacific Participants Getting Accomodated ? Its 0330 AM in New Delhi Marina Lewis:thanks all!! Vaibhav Aggarwal:Ciao Guys Paul KEATING:thanks all. good night khouloud Dawahi:thank you all . Vaibhav Aggarwal:Night

1 0

RPM Working Group call 21/09/2016: Notes and Actions
by David Tait Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear All Please find attached the notes and action’s from today’s Working Group (WG) call. The notes and actions are as follows: There was an extensive walk through of Sunrise Registrations through the TMCH. Thereafter the following additional possible questions were raised for discussion by WG participants: · How often are SMD files compromised and have to be revoked? How prevalent is this as a problem? · Does this mean we have no idea how many LRP registrations were made available and in which registries? · Is there really no data on additional voluntary mechanisms? e.g. ALP · Please add questions of ALP, QLP where these periods in need of review? · Is it possible to expand the charter questions to include some of the underlying TMCH questions concerning TM scope in the sunrise period? (1) When the TM registered in the TMCH database is a generic or descriptive word, and sunrise is used for registering that mark as a domain name completely unrelated to the goods and service category of TM protection, is that fair for other/future/potential DN registrants? and (2) (related) Should Sunrise rights be limited to the categories of goods and services of the TM? · Is there any evidence of 'gaming' e.g. of registering a number of valuable trade mark names under the sunrise period of marks to which they do not have a traditional legal claim? · What is the relationship between premium pricing and trademark rights? To what extent do premium names correspond to registered trademarks? · Further explore "use" and the types of proof required by the TMCH The next working group meeting with take place next Wednesday 28 September 2016 at 1600 UTC. Kind regards, David David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org www.icann.org

3 2

Further Note on Sunrise Periods
by Mary Wong Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear all, you may also wish to note the following page, maintained by ICANN, that lists the respective Sunrise Periods for each New gTLD registry operator, along with any additional voluntary mechanisms (such as Limited Registration Periods) offered by each registry: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 06:53 To: David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: RPM Working Group call 21/09/2016: Notes and Actions Further to the notes sent by David (below), please note that staff has updated the slide deck from today with the suggested additional questions, and posted it to the Working Group wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/sAO4Aw. Please review the added slides to make sure that we have accurately captured your suggestions, and let us know if we inadvertently missed a suggestion you made on the call that was just held. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 06:09 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: RPM Working Group call 21/09/2016: Notes and Actions Dear All Please find attached the notes and action’s from today’s Working Group (WG) call. The notes and actions are as follows: There was an extensive walk through of Sunrise Registrations through the TMCH. Thereafter the following additional possible questions were raised for discussion by WG participants: · How often are SMD files compromised and have to be revoked? How prevalent is this as a problem? · Does this mean we have no idea how many LRP registrations were made available and in which registries? · Is there really no data on additional voluntary mechanisms? e.g. ALP · Please add questions of ALP, QLP where these periods in need of review? · Is it possible to expand the charter questions to include some of the underlying TMCH questions concerning TM scope in the sunrise period? (1) When the TM registered in the TMCH database is a generic or descriptive word, and sunrise is used for registering that mark as a domain name completely unrelated to the goods and service category of TM protection, is that fair for other/future/potential DN registrants? and (2) (related) Should Sunrise rights be limited to the categories of goods and services of the TM? · Is there any evidence of 'gaming' e.g. of registering a number of valuable trade mark names under the sunrise period of marks to which they do not have a traditional legal claim? · What is the relationship between premium pricing and trademark rights? To what extent do premium names correspond to registered trademarks? · Further explore "use" and the types of proof required by the TMCH The next working group meeting with take place next Wednesday 28 September 2016 at 1600 UTC. Kind regards, David David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 0

Agenda for RPM Review Working Group call on 21 September
by Mary Wong Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear all, As with the presentation and discussion last week on the TMCH, the proposed agenda for the Working Group call scheduled for this week is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Overview and discussion of Sunrise Periods 3. Overview and discussion of the associated Working Group Charter questions 4. Next steps/next meeting Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 22:32 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: Agenda for RPMs Dear All The co-chairs have formed the view that the next three weeks will be an important planning time as we review the TMCH, Sunrise Period and TM Claims and their Charter questions -- and plan a path together forward. In light of this today’s meeting will adopt the following format: (1) Overview and discussion of the TMCH; and (2) Overview and discussion of the associated Charter questions. Kind regards, David David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org www.icann.org

3 2

Notes and Outcomes from Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group meeting 14 Sep 2016
by David Tait Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

Dear All Please find below the notes and actions arising from today’s meeting. The Working Group (WG) was provided with an extensive overview of the TMCH and its functioning. ACTION: (i) WG participants are strongly encourage to provide information on their experiences and any particularly cases they can provide information on to assist the WG's deliberations, and (ii)Additional possible questions to be shared on mailing list for consideration. The WG then undertook a ‘deep dive' on the TMCH related Charter questions proposing the following additional questions: · TMCH goes into the legality of a trademark too much, this is the responsibility of the trademark owners and their attorneys. · TMCH should act as a nodal agency only without rendering any determination on the legal validity of marks. It should have no discretion. · Questions have been raised about costs beyond those advertised upfront on the TMCH page e.g. renewals through agents and deposits, the WG should work on the true cost of registration. · Has there been 'gaming' or abuse observed in relation to the TMCH? · How are marks which have and have not undergone substantive review been differentiated in the TMCH? · From those jurisdictions which do not provide for substantive review of the mark are any further procedures or analysis undertaken by the TMCH? The next WG meeting will take place on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 21:00 UTC and will focus on the Sunrise period. David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org www.icann.org

4 3

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 14 September 2016
by Terri Agnew Sept. 14, 2016

Sept. 14, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/jBysAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-14sep16-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rhiOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 14 September 2016: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 17:00 Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/jBysAw George Kirikos:Hi folks. George Kirikos:This might be the first time I logged in before Petter. :-) Petter Rindforth:Congratulations! George Kirikos:lol It's hard to beat your record of early arrivals. ;-) George Kirikos:Can we unlock the slides, so that we can browse them ourselves? susan payne:sorry, I think that was me George Kirikos:*6 to mute/unmute susan payne:oh, maybe not just me Martin Silva Valent:Hi all Steve Levy:Hello all! Elizabeth Featherman:Hi everyone! susan payne:I hardly know where to start :) David Tait:Can do kathy David Tait:Will do Kurt Pritz:Did we / Should we ask Deloitte to present? Vaibhav Aggarwal:this should b skipped as this is legal in nature George Kirikos:The "use" here can easily be gamed, i.e. "token use" or "de minimus" use that wouldn't actually rise to the level to grant trademark rights, see: http://www.fr.com/news/dont-be-confused-about-whether-your-trademark-is-use… Vaibhav Aggarwal:this is not unquestionably different so lure George Kirikos:(I made this point on the mailing list a couple of weeks ago) David Tait:I dont think so Kathy Vaibhav Aggarwal:plural nature if diff should b allowed Vaibhav Aggarwal:problem is that the TMCH should I n,y a repository and be an agency nodal to check validity of trade mark Vaibhav Aggarwal:not become a statutory agency Greg Shatan:Sorry to join late; was watching the IANA Transition Senate hearings. Vaibhav Aggarwal:the senate intelligence committee. is also interested in the process :-) though IANa is irrelevant to this group George Kirikos:Can we unlock the slides, so we can scroll back? George Kirikos:Thank you. David Tait:I've unlocked them unless kathy has an objection Kathy Kleiman:great George Kirikos:The reason those "validations" exist are due to the gaming issue, i.e. where folks use TMCH to claim domains in sunrises. If that benefit of TMCH registration was removed, it would simplify things immensely, and eliminate the incentives for that gaming. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Vaibhav, the TMCH is only a repository. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:It does only check validity... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:George contends that validity check can be gamed, which is a different issue, but the TMCH does not grant anyone rights. George Kirikos:That's false, Kristine. You get sunrise access, being in the TMCH, see #2 of http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/content/reasons-record-your-marks-tr… Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Yes, that's the reason you put your marks in. But you don't get a TM because you put a mark in. George Kirikos:Eliminate #2, and a lot of problems disappear. Steve Levy:Sunrise access does not grant any TM rights. Even a domain acquired through gaming sunrise is subject to UDRP George Kirikos:For a generic domain name, you defend it without having to point to a de minimis TM. George Kirikos:The key is to get to it first. Jeff Neuman:I am confused by Kathy's intervention. You can have multiple entries for any mark in the TMCH Greg Shatan:There's no such thing as a "generic domain name." George Kirikos:And so, if you can get priority access via a piece of paper, folks will game the system to get that piece of paper. George Kirikos:Greg: I meant, for valuable strings, like common dictionary words, short acronyms, etc. Jeff Neuman:As you can see, it is very difficult to separate the TMCH as a database from the Sunrise and TMCH susan payne:@George, there is a sunrise dispute process in addition to the UDRP Dominic DeLuca(FORUM):If a Registry is allowing this "gaming" to take place, would that be a possible use for the PDDRP? Greg Shatan:Those may be "generic" in the hands of one registrant and valuable trademarks in the hands of another registrant. George Kirikos:e.g. "ASK" in the class of "Plectrums" for the .EU sunrise: https://eu.adr.eu/adr/decisions/decision.php?dispute_id=2438 Vaibhav Aggarwal:we can make more relevant use of the "repository" if v reduce the cost and encourage the TM owners just deposit the TM claims irrespective of the d Omani name activity - that will take care of the long term use of the repository and cut on the time and energy of the right parties or serious applicants John:If we are talking about issues relating to becoming a TMCH agent, we should also look at the terms of the contract to be an Agent which are prohibitive (in addition to the cost) Vaibhav Aggarwal:+1 John susan payne:John, don't disagree with you but would you mind identifying yourself Kathy Kleiman:Vaibhav is that a new or old hand? Vaibhav Aggarwal:old Vaibhav Aggarwal:sorry Greg Shatan:There's no reason ASK cannot be a valid trademark if it meets the appropriate criteria. The DRP panel you link to found that it was, and that respondent violated complainant's rights (and a bad actor generally) and duly transferred the domain name. Vaibhav Aggarwal:in the car chauffeur is a little rough John:@Susan - McElwaine: I entered just my first name once and Adobe is not automatically using that :) susan payne:hello Jeff Neuman:I dont believe allocation of names outside the Sunrise Process is in the scope of this PDP (except to the extent that those allocation mechanisms are inconsistent with the RPMS) Dominic DeLuca(FORUM):Thanks, Jeff. Vaibhav Aggarwal::-) George Kirikos:Obviously fanciful marks like "EXXON" or "VERIZON" are considered the strongest. Vaibhav Aggarwal:so for the business of registrations ncrease, TMCH could act as a way to promote business and also assist the applicants George Kirikos:We need to get raw access to the TMCH database, and can see how many of them are of the strongest type, compared to those that are questionable (like the "ASK" example in the .EU sunrise). Terri Agnew:@Greg, check your mute Vaibhav Aggarwal:@George how will TMCH act in reference to TM by common law Vaibhav Aggarwal:is TMCH responsible for the decision in sunrise? Vaibhav Aggarwal:if not then who is ? Petter Rindforth:I have seen more URS cases where the complainant referred to their TM rights and use in a traditional way, rather than a registration at TMCH Josh Partington:George, is this issue really strength of the marks in the TMCH or is it the "legitimacy" for lack of a better word? Vaibhav Aggarwal:+1 JEFF Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:+1 Jeff Vaibhav Aggarwal:emerging markets Josh Partington:In the ASK case, my quick read is that the conclusion was the Benelux registration was obtained for the purpose of using the sunrise period as opposed to a legitimate trademark right Vaibhav Aggarwal:and developing countries / jurisdictions George Kirikos:Josh: well, if we're talking about sunrise, then I think only fanciful marks should have protection. Of course, illegitimate 'marks' should never be in the repository to begin with. George Kirikos:But, that requires stronger validation. Vaibhav Aggarwal:+1 JEFF Renee Reuter:Although a term can be used as a generic term, if it is registered as a trademark,it should be given the same protection as any other registration in the TMCH Rebecca Tushnet:That's not really true re: infringement--Apple has a narrower scope than Xerox even though they are quite strong. Vaibhav Aggarwal:not just in the US but in all Viena Agreement countries Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):It would be helpful to understand how the charter question re "losing legitimate opportunities", which appears twice in the slides incidentally, relates to the TMCH itself, as opposed to Sunrise versus Claims. Much of the discussion today seems to conflate these three separate concepts. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:But all brands are subject to being the victims of cybersquatting....we do not get to decide if a mark is strong. In the US that requires a stringent legal test. Greg Shatan:We have no business selecting among valid registered trademarks . George Kirikos:If we're not a "legal authority", then why are we granting these TMs special rights here to begin with? :-) i.e. leave it to the courts. Vaibhav Aggarwal:book Silk Route by Anupam Chander by UCDavis will answer that Rebecca Tushnet:Just note that "treat everything alike" means that, functionally, Apple has more rights over unrelated uses than Xerox does. Renee Reuter:Many jurisdictions, not just the US, have stringent legal tests before a registration is granted. Vaibhav Aggarwal:if staff can share the abstract from it Kathy Kleiman:Jeff, is your hand still up? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry:Yes, Renee, I only wanted to speak to my personal knowledge... :) susan payne:taken my hand down. it's been said Jeff Neuman:@Greg - I agree we should not distinguish between registered trademarks in general. Marie Pattullo:The TMCH does not have the legal authority to question national TM registration and grant procedures, and neither should it have. That's why we have courts. George Kirikos:The test is whether all marks (regardless of strength) should be granted equal access to the sunrise period (i.e. the main benefit of TMCH registration). In my view, no. Marie Pattullo:Disagree, George. A TM is a TM. George Kirikos:I disagree, Jeff. If we're going to give certain companies first dibs on certain domains, we should weigh the costs/benefits of that decision for each type of domain/mark. Jeff Neuman:Only whether the decision to accept trademarks from jurisdictions that do not perform substantive review was the right choice. And we would need data to prove or disprove Jeff Neuman:Only whether the decision to accept trademarks from jurisdictions that do not perform substantive review was the right choice. And we would need data to prove or disprove\ Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):@Greg, well said re arbitrary marks. susan payne:agree it is not our job to re-write TM law Vaibhav Aggarwal:@jeff that s unfair to the authority granting the mark George Kirikos:e.g. the "cost/benefits" of granting "EXXON" first dibs are much different than the cost/benefits of giving "ASK" (for Plectrums) first dibs. susan payne:no George they are not Terri Agnew:next call: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes. George Kirikos:For arbitrary marks, there are many non-infringing users of that word. So, the "costs" of granting a markholder first dibs is high. Vaibhav Aggarwal:thanks Kathy lovely Martin Silva Valent:Great meeting!!!! I learned a lot! George Kirikos:Bye folks. Greg Shatan:I don't think that should be called a "cost." Martin Silva Valent:Thanks to everyone George Kirikos:It's an opportunity cost, Greg. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Goodbye all. George Kirikos:A narrow benefit to one firm, vs. costs that are incurred by othes, who don't get that access. David Tait:Just as a reminder that the GNSO RPMs survey closes on 15 September please complete it https://s.zoomerang.com/r/CL3MJLL Josh Partington:So the owner of a registration for an arbitrary mark should be on the same footing as anyone else? Greg Shatan:I recommend reading McCarthy on Trademarks. Vaibhav Aggarwal:thanks George Kirikos:Although, registry operators are capturing that value, simply by calling those domains "premium" -- they don't care if a markholder gets it, or a non-markholder, as long as they get paid. Greg Shatan:It's a little long.... :-) David Tait:Thanks all! Steve Levy:Thanks all George Kirikos:Bye folks. Salvador Camacho Hernandez:Thanks to everybody

1 0

Agenda for RPMs
by David Tait Sept. 14, 2016

Sept. 14, 2016

Dear All The co-chairs have formed the view that the next three weeks will be an important planning time as we review the TMCH, Sunrise Period and TM Claims and their Charter questions -- and plan a path together forward. In light of this today’s meeting will adopt the following format: (1) Overview and discussion of the TMCH; and (2) Overview and discussion of the associated Charter questions. Kind regards, David David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 0