March 2017 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

Deloitte report
by Mary Wong March 11, 2017

March 11, 2017

Hello all – this is the report that Deloitte just sent to us, that is being discussed in the session at the moment. For those joining us remotely, apologies for the technical problem with the Adobe Connect room. We are trying to fix it as quickly as we can so we can show the document. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

EFF article on the TMCH -- ICANN's Special Privileges for Trademark Owners are The.Worst
by George Kirikos March 11, 2017

March 11, 2017

Hi folks, The Electronic Frontier Foundation posted a timely article on the TMCH: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/icanns-special-privileges-trademark-o… https://www.eff.org/document/trademark-scholars-letter-icann-gnso-rpm-worki… Given their position, I hope that they will be actively participating in this working group. I see some of the signatories of the letter are already actively engaged. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

ICANN58: GNSO Open Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Nathalie Peregrine March 10, 2017

March 10, 2017

Dear all, Pre-ICANN meeting email inboxes are full at the best of times, so the GNSO SO/AC Support team has created a one-stop wiki page for all your open meeting remote participation queries. In addition to this, the ICANN meetings website provides you with an easy to navigate schedule and the possibility of downloading all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN58 Meeting Schedule<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_&d=…> GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Step 1 Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage, and if not done yet, create a log in when prompted. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your calendar inbox. To get a general description of the session, please hover your mouse over the session title and a summary of the session will appear as well as a “add to my schedule” option. Step 2 Please download the ICANN58 Mobile App to automatically receive the latest updates to your schedule (available on Apple and Android products, look for “ICANN58”) Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule and on the GNSO Remote Participation Wiki page) will provide audio streaming. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Terri Agnew will be onsite to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<applewebdata://FB60497E-61D8-4FE9-BF9C-EB238191E416/gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team

2 1

Proposed meeting agendas for ICANN58
by Mary Wong March 8, 2017

March 8, 2017

Dear all, Please find below the Co-Chairs’ proposed meeting agendas for our two sessions at ICANN58. Staff will send a separate email with information on remote participation, locations and other logistical information for the sessions. Agenda for the 3-hour face-to-face Working Group meeting on Saturday 11 March (all times local to Copenhagen): 10.15 – 10.30: Welcome, roll call and review of PDP timeline and objectives for the day 10.30 – 11.30: Discussion with Vicky Folens (Deloitte) 11.30 – 12.15: Review all the TMCH Charter questions to see what questions require additional work/discussion, and what can be considered closed for the time being (please see additional notes below) 12.15 – 12.45: Lunch (this will be provided) 12.45 – 13.30: Continue/complete TMCH Charter questions discussion 13.30 – 13.45: Review updated Work Plan and agree on next steps NOTES: · For the TMCH Charter discussion, we will be using the tables that were most recently circulated, i.e. the tables comparing the TMCH Charter questions with the STI recommendations, Applicant Guidebook text, and other Program Documentation. There were a total of three such tables: one for Category 3, one for Categories 4-6, and one for Categories 1 & 2. · We will begin with completing our initial discussion on the Category 3 table (Question 11), followed by Categories 4-6 and finally, if time permits, Categories 1 & 2. · Please be sure to review all the tables before the Saturday meeting. All have been circulated (with the ones for Categories 1 & 2, and 4-6 distributed via email on Sunday 5 March) and can also be downloaded from this Working Group wiki page (under Comparison Charts): https://community.icann.org/x/_pHRAw. Agenda for the Open Community Session on Wednesday 15 March 2017 (0900 – 1030): 1. Welcome and introduction to the PDP 2. Status update & discussion: TMCH Charter questions - community input 3. Preview: Sunrise, Claims, registry operator private protections - community input 4. Next steps & PDP timeline Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

FEEDBACK REQUESTED: ICANN58 meeting agendas and a question on a particular rotational slot for future Working Group calls
by Mary Wong March 6, 2017

March 6, 2017

Dear all, Please take a moment to provide your feedback on the following two items: (1) ICANN58 Proposed Meeting Agendas Please see the attached, which was also displayed in the Adobe Connect room during the meeting that just ended, and send any comments or suggestions you may have to this list so that the Co-Chairs can take your feedback into consideration in planning our sessions at ICANN58. (2) Rotational Meeting Question The Co-Chairs would like to request feedback, particularly from our Asia-Pacific-based members, as to whether it will be preferable to change the DAY (not the time) of the one meeting (out of every four) that is held at 0400 UTC. At the moment, it is at 0400 UTC on Wednesdays (for Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia and Australia/NZ) – which is Tuesday night for North America. Should this be changed to 0400 UTC on THURSDAYS (making it Wednesday night for North America, and Thursday morning/day time for EMEA and APAC)? Thanks and cheers Mary

5 4

FOR REVIEW: Additional Documents & Action Items from 1 March 2017 Working Group call
by Mary Wong March 5, 2017

March 5, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached two additional staff-prepared tables for your review as we prepare to go into our meetings at ICANN58. These are tables that do for TMCH Charter Categories 1 & 2, and again for Categories 4, 5 & 6, what was done for Category 3 that we discussed on our last Working Group call, i.e. tabular comparison of the specific Charter questions with the STI recommendations, text of the Applicant Guidebook, and other relevant documentation prepared for the 2012 New gTLD Program Round. Please note that in the interests of time, these tables are being circulated to everyone at the same time and so they have not yet been reviewed by our Working Group co-chairs. These two documents, as well as the table for Category 3, have also been uploaded to the Working Group wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/_pHRAw. From the last Working Group call, the action items captured by staff were the following: 1. Working Group to consider forming a sub group to consider whether, for “design marks” there is a discrepancy between the intended scope of the TMCH (as indicated by the STI recommendations and Applicant Guidebook language) and its application by Deloitte · Question: Should this work commence after further feedback is received from Deloitte? · Volunteers so far: Martin Silva Valent, John McElwaine, Rebecca Tushnet · Note: Check with Deloitte if one reason for the language and scope of the Guidelines on this point was practical and/or technical considerations due to the TMCH having to accept trademarks from all jurisdictions, but not all jurisdictions distinguishing between a standard word or character mark, and a design (or device or image) mark 2. Working Group to clarify with Deloitte if they accepted geographical indications purely either because the G.I. was a registered trademark or one that was demonstrably protected by a statute or treaty. Finally, staff is working with the co-chairs to have meeting agendas for our two ICANN58 sessions finalized. We hope to have these to you all by this Wednesday. Note that there is no Working Group meeting this coming Wednesday, so that our next meeting will be at ICANN58, on Saturday 11 March 2017 at 10.15 a.m. Copenhagen time (for those joining the meeting remotely, please see the email from Nathalie Peregrine that provides the call-in and Adobe Connect details). Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 15:03 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Agenda for Working Group call on Wednesday 1 March 2017 Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group meeting on 1 March 2017, at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discuss whether the TMCH as operated today fulfills the requirements in the Applicant Guidebook for the 2012 New gTLD Program round for specified TMCH Charter Questions (see below) 3. Review and agree on proposed agenda for the Working Group meetings at ICANN58 4. Reminder: remote participation for ICANN58 sessions 5. Next steps/next meeting (note: no Working Group call scheduled for 8 March 2017) For Agenda Item #2, please refer to the materials that were circulated on Friday 24 February (i.e. the June 2012 TMCH framework published in Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook, the December 2009 recommendations from the Special Trademark Issues (STI) Review Team, and the chronological table of documents, community work and other milestones in the development of the final form of the TMCH) as well as a further summary table that will be circulated very shortly. Proposed agendas for the ICANN58 sessions will also be circulated as soon as they are available. All documents will be posted to the Working Group wiki page for this call for your easy reference. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

LAST CALL: Follow up questions for Deloitte
by Mary Wong March 4, 2017

March 4, 2017

Dear all, Not having received any further feedback, including on the additional suggestions of examples for Deloitte, staff would like to suggest that we go ahead and send what we have to Deloitte so that they will have at least an initial list of follow up questions and examples first thing Monday morning. However, we will be sure to note that there may be additional or supplemental questions and/or examples to come. We are also pleased to inform everyone that Vicky Folens from Deloitte has confirmed that she will be in Copenhagen and able to join our Working Group for our Saturday 11 March face-to-face meeting. Staff is working with the Co-Chairs to finalize an agenda for that meeting as well as our open community session on Wednesday 15 March, based on the proposed agendas that were circulated for your feedback after our call this past Wednesday. Please let us know if you have any additional comments. Thanks and cheers Mary On 3/2/17, 11:26, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: Thanks much, George – I apologize that I had omitted to ask Working Group members if they support inclusion of the three additional examples you’d suggested. All, please chime in with your thoughts as soon as you can. Thank you! Cheers Mary On 3/2/17, 05:41, "George Kirikos" <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: For the list of example marks in Annex A, (there are only 3 at present, namely CARS, PARENTS and FRUIT OF THE LOOM), I had thought we were also going to include the 3 additional ones at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-February/001064.html namely for "MUSIC", "DEALHUNTER" and the stylized letter 'A' ?? When the the topic originally came up, I think we had wanted to get at least 5 examples (so this would make a total of 6). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&… On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > Please find attached a compilation of all the questions that the Working > Group has agreed to send to Deloitte for follow up and additional feedback. > As mentioned on the call earlier today, we are hoping to send out the list > by the end of this week, to allow Deloitte a chance to review the list > before meeting with us at ICANN58 in Copenhagen. We will therefore greatly > appreciate it if you can let us know if you see any omissions, inaccuracies > or mistakes that need correction in the attached document by 1200 UTC this > Friday, 3 March 2017. > > > > Please note the following as well: > > > > · As noted on the call today, it is unlikely that Deloitte will be > able to provide answers to the questions in time for our meetings at > ICANN58; however, we hope that sending them the list before then will allow > for a constructive discussion at ICANN58. > > > > · The attached list does not include the following questions that > were also suggested: > > > > “Ask Deloitte for a list of all TMCH registrations with Sunrise preference > and to indicate which are dictionary terms” – staff is uncertain what this > question is aimed to elicit, and we are also concerned that Deloitte may not > wish to provide specific lists or engage on the question of what are, and > are not, dictionary terms. We therefore suggest rephrasing this question if > it is still deemed to be needed. > > > > “Ask Deloitte if a separate SMD file is created for each additional > Previously-Abused Label that is added” – in view of the fact that these > labels are not used for Sunrise registrations but only to generate Claims > Notices, we would like to ask if this question is still needed. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 1

FOR REVIEW: Follow up questions for Deloitte
by Mary Wong March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Dear all, Please find attached a compilation of all the questions that the Working Group has agreed to send to Deloitte for follow up and additional feedback. As mentioned on the call earlier today, we are hoping to send out the list by the end of this week, to allow Deloitte a chance to review the list before meeting with us at ICANN58 in Copenhagen. We will therefore greatly appreciate it if you can let us know if you see any omissions, inaccuracies or mistakes that need correction in the attached document by 1200 UTC this Friday, 3 March 2017. Please note the following as well: · As noted on the call today, it is unlikely that Deloitte will be able to provide answers to the questions in time for our meetings at ICANN58; however, we hope that sending them the list before then will allow for a constructive discussion at ICANN58. · The attached list does not include the following questions that were also suggested: “Ask Deloitte for a list of all TMCH registrations with Sunrise preference and to indicate which are dictionary terms” – staff is uncertain what this question is aimed to elicit, and we are also concerned that Deloitte may not wish to provide specific lists or engage on the question of what are, and are not, dictionary terms. We therefore suggest rephrasing this question if it is still deemed to be needed. “Ask Deloitte if a separate SMD file is created for each additional Previously-Abused Label that is added” – in view of the fact that these labels are not used for Sunrise registrations but only to generate Claims Notices, we would like to ask if this question is still needed. Thanks and cheers Mary

2 2

Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group
by Terri Agnew March 1, 2017

March 1, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 01 March 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YZ3DAw MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-01mar17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p7748y84ny8/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d2bb332eb83bd37e 112e25e7751c52e54fb922234e519726f89516ceebbbd6db> https://participate.icann.org/p7748y84ny8/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for 01 March 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 01 March 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Y Z3DAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ YZ3DAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_4ykVYCNKhxycZFYfXClGpFutuKwNDkTDanoUtd09b 8&s=ytx-KSkSEb3EACsRZ-ayBuXn6ktuEO_OY9Via6NzMLI&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_4ykVYCNKhxycZFYfXClGpFutuKwNDkTDanoUtd09b8&s=yt x-KSkSEb3EACsRZ-ayBuXn6ktuEO_OY9Via6NzMLI&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. Elizabeth Featherman:Hello! George Kirikos:Welcome Elizabeth. Elizabeth Featherman:Thanks George! Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All George Kirikos:Hey Paul & Maxim. Martin Silva Valent:Hi all! Paul Tattersfield:Hi George is your part of Canada ready fro spring yet? George Kirikos:I think so, Paul, if the groundhogs are correct. :-) Paul Tattersfield::) Philip Corwin:Hello all, and welcome to our last WG meeting before Copenhagen Yuri Chumak:greetings George Kirikos:Welcome Phil & Yuri. Philip Corwin:Here in DC area it will be close to 80F today -- with predictions of snow showers on friday morning. Crazy weather roller coaster. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Note: there is a mistake in AGB - clearinghouse should be replaced with CZDS in Module 5, Transition to delegation (to avoid confusion with TMCH, which referenced in AGB 2012 as both Trademark Clearinghouse and Clearinghouse) - page 5-15 Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves Philip Corwin:Great work by Mary on this document Mary Wong:@Maxim - we will check and correct Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Phil George Kirikos:IRT was unrepresentative (I recall Phil wasn't allowed to join). David McAuley (RySG):The Strawman Solution - sounds like a good film Philip Corwin:There were complaints about IRT process that led to establishment of STI-RT -- which adopted and refined some IRT recommendations, while rejecting others, in my recollection. What's important now is what is actually in the Appricant Guidebook. Jeff Neuman:@George - The IRT was a group set up of professional IP experts on proposing a set of recommendations to the Board. Although I was on from the Registries and Jon Nevett from the Registrars, and Mary Wong at the time with the NCUC, it was not intended to be "representative" as you would define it. But that does not take away from the work that was done. George Kirikos:There's an echo (turn off speakers). Edward Morris:It would be iteresting to find out how we got from point a to point b. And whether we want to do a U turn. George Kirikos:+1 Martin GraceM: are there any examples of design marks in the tmch? Mary Wong:@Grace, the Working Group agreed to follow up with Deloitte to clarify how they handle design marks, and examples they can give George Kirikos:You're on the right track, Martin. Edward Morris:+1 Martin. Be interesting to know how this happened Pascal Boehner:But design or figurative marks also deserve TM protection as mere word marks; they might have another extent and scope of protection which is to be looked at. But there is no reason not to protect them GraceM:thanks @ Mary Philip Corwin:@Jeff--again, while the chronology is useful for understanding the history and source of the developed RPMs, our WG focus is on what is actually in the final AG, whether ithey are being properly implemented, and whether they are effective and balanced. Suggestions for any modifications can be new, or can be based on historic sources including as the IRT. Georges Nahitchevansky:Has this, in fact, been an actual issue with the TMCH (i.e., on the level of abuse) or is this anecdotal issue -- and thus a theoretical discussion George Kirikos:That's why it'd be nice to know how they handle specific examples, e.g. CARS, PARENTS, DEALHUNTER, MUSIC, the letter 'A', etc. http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-February/001064.html George Kirikos:they = TMCH George Kirikos:All those shouldn't be acceptable, if we stick to the strict interpretation of the STI. Martin Silva Valent:I agree I might be off here, I 've might missed a debate. I won't impose my impression. Mary Wong:Do the TMCH Guidelines published by Deloitte assist in explaining how word elements in design marks are handled? Edward Morris:Small team seems t be called for here. Edward Morris:We don't have enough time to go in depth in the main group. George Kirikos:There's also the related issue of whether the published guidelines are being followed (which is hard to know, if we're not allowed to view the list of recordals in public). Susan Payne:I'm not sure this is the time for a small group. arent we still asking deloitte questions and planning to meet with them Mary Wong:@Martin, does 5.2.1 (on page 2 of this table) of the TMCH Guidelines help you evaluate your question? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):in AGB, 1. PURPOSE OF CLEARINGHOUSE, 1.4, 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. Do we know if additional services of TMCH are kept separated? Bradley Silver:+1 Susan - let's get feedback from Deloitte first on this question. Mary Wong:@Maxim, I believe the only ancillary service being offered is the Ongoing Claims Service Pascal Boehner:+1 Susan Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree Susan. I think it's premature. Martin Silva Valent:Mary, I'm basing my doubts on that text :-) Georges Nahitchevansky:I agree. let's get infor from Deloitte first and then decide if this a real issue to be addressed and debated Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and the incentive of https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademark-2Dclearing house.com_content_blocking-2Dmechanisms-2Dtmch-2Dclients-2Ddpml <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademark-2Dclearin ghouse.com_content_blocking-2Dmechanisms-2Dtmch-2Dclients-2Ddpml&d=DwICaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0 AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_4ykVYCNKhxycZFYfXClGpFutuKwNDkTDanoUtd09b8&s=X5gyXfELMYQ7sV FL4BeUDAi-NNULYEOFgC3K_HAb5V4&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_4ykVYCNKhxycZFYfXClGpFutuKwNDkTDanoUtd09b8&s=X5 gyXfELMYQ7sVFL4BeUDAi-NNULYEOFgC3K_HAb5V4&e= ? it is not in AGB Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think the first question is ask Deloitte if there is indeed a discrepancy and what they can tell us about it. at least we would be able to know where to start digging. Edward Morris:Here's a chance to get into substance. Deloitte answers and a small groupcan run concurrently. Mark Massey:+1 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also AGB, Trademark Clearinghouse 1.5 have some incorrect reference to the policy process ...Before material changes are made to the Clearinghouse functions, they will be reviewed through the ICANN public participation model. Mary Wong:@Maxim, yes that sentence is in the AGB and has been added to the end of this table. Paul Tattersfield:should read geographical indications not geographical indicators Mary Wong:@Paul, oops, thanks for catching that, you're right Rebecca L Tushnet:Could I join the small group on design marks? Sorry I was delayed in joining. George Kirikos:So, 3.6 might include stock ticker symbols, if someone had a financial TLD and wanted to offer that in a sunrise. George Kirikos:*6 to mute/unmute Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Also 2.1 of TM Clearinghouse : 2.1 The selection of Trademark Clearinghouse Service Provider(s) will be subject to predetermined criteria, but the foremost considerations will be the ability to store, authenticate, validate and disseminate the data at the highest level of technical stabilityand security without interference with the integrity or timeliness of the registration process or registry operations. ... in reality we saw some glitches and non working conditions of TMCH ... there is not mechanism to ensure that TMCH has to stick to " the highest level of technical stabilityand security without interference with the integrity or timeliness" , after the initial contract execution with ICANN ... basically SLA of some sort and annual review of technical issues Philip Corwin:This co-chair, speaking personally, believes that we are going to have to decide that some questions are good enough and leave detailed discussion only to thse few questions on which there is significant concern with the wording within the WG. If we discuss each Q in detail we won't reach Sunrise and Claim Notices until late spring or summer, and we should do all we can to avoid falling far behind on our schedule so long as it does not result in any corner cutting that undermines the integrity of our work. We can discuss all this in CPH. Terri Agnew:as a reminder to active your mic on the AC, select the telehpone icon top tool bar and follow the prompt or send me a private AC chat and I can have the operator dial out to you. Susan Payne:+1 Kristine Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also 2.4.4 of the same TM Clearinghouse part of AGB, includes requirements to customer service availability... which were not met and need the same review process as 2.1 Massimo Vittori:I am sorry I ma not able to join the converstation George Kirikos:There's no international consensus that GIs should have protection, so that's likely the concern, e.g. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_G eographical-5Findication-23Differences-5Fin-5Fphilosophy <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_ Geographical-5Findication-23Differences-5Fin-5Fphilosophy&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3P Jp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4 xR2EBk&m=_4ykVYCNKhxycZFYfXClGpFutuKwNDkTDanoUtd09b8&s=DaVAutBtkh0OuXNy9G_Pv KtfG60TivduIArtUWYIikk&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_4ykVYCNKhxycZFYfXClGpFutuKwNDkTDanoUtd09b8&s=Da VAutBtkh0OuXNy9G_PvKtfG60TivduIArtUWYIikk&e= Paul Tattersfield:The TMCH already caters for marks other than registered tradmarks marks from states 6ter etc. Mary Wong:@Kathy, staff will consult the transcript when that is available to make sure Kristine's clarification and John's earlier question are accurately captured. George Kirikos:Champagne.wine was obtained the French organization. Do we know if it was via a GI in the TMCH and sunrise? Or some other way? https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__whois.domaintools.com_ch ampagne.wine <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__whois.domaintools.com_c hampagne.wine&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2d XAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_4ykVYCNKhxycZFYfXClGpFutuKwNDkTDan oUtd09b8&s=UfVkfodiyppOlGt9LrR195G20tFK6Qw3LKPj_8xVKNA&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_4ykVYCNKhxycZFYfXClGpFutuKwNDkTDanoUtd09b8&s=Uf VkfodiyppOlGt9LrR195G20tFK6Qw3LKPj_8xVKNA&e= George Kirikos:insert *by above Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:George, I don't think the TMCH labels as mark as "GI" or not. It Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services: It's a word, in a database. Mike Rodenbaugh:Have we asked Deloitte how many TM owners took advantage of the TM+50 feature, and at what quantity? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:If it passes the TM test, it's in, if not, it's not. Pascal Boehner:Even if there ist no international consensus: if "champagne" is protected in France as a GI, it shall get the same protection as a national French TM, even if in other jurisdictions, it would not be accepted Mary Wong:@George, the criteria for inclusion in the TMCH has been registered TMs, court-validated marks, and marks protected by statute or treaty. This has been the case through various versions of the AGB and dating back to the IRT. Paul Tattersfield:@Kristine The TMCH already accepts marks other than registered trademarks - eg marks protected by statue or treaty George Kirikos:Thanks Mary. Pascal Boehner:+1 Paul Edward Morris:That would be great Mike Rodenbaugh:That's what I was asking too Edward Morris:Thanks Mary - that would be helpful. Let's see what we got back. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Paul, yes, but then the submitter submits the statute or treaty Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:If each line item in the DB has an appended TM, statute, or treaty, then the question is really just "do we have any unsupported marks"? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Are we going to make a poll to collect questions for Deloitte? Edward Morris:Thanks Kathy and Phil Paul Tattersfield:Kristine so what's wrong with asking / discussing for similar verification for Geographical INdications? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I suggested poll instead of e-mails - so it is more visible to participants Mary Wong:Q&A on Previously Abused Labels with/from Deloitte: "How many TMCH records include a TM+50 list; and how many are on this list on average? How many registrations were made for entries on the TM+50 list?The abused domain name labels can only be added in the event that a submitted trademark record has been verified. In this respect, 209 UDRP cases have been submitted to the trademark records linked to 209 TMCH records. These URDP cases cover in total 375 abused domain name labels. " Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Paul. Nothing. Every item should have a validation/verification. TM, statute or treaty. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@Paul, it's an excel spreadsheet. As long as a word can check the box, it's in. Unless we're saying someone is not properly checking a box, then I'm still not sure what the problem is. Paul Tattersfield:Is there a box to even check? Should there be? etc. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes. EVERY entry has to be validated Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:There is no "claiming to be a GI so I skip validation" step that I'm aware of. Edward Morris:Thanks Mary. Very useful. So TM+1.79 may be the average, if I undrrstand things correctly. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:LOL Ed. Edward Morris:@Kristine. My new proposal. I always liked decimal points. :) George Kirikos:Identical match for inclusion. But, I can see where a 'fuzzy match' might have some value, for informational purposes. George Kirikos:Thanks for the history, though, Kathy. Mary Wong:@Ed, my understanding is that a TM owner can submit 1 label for various TMs in one UDRP proceeding, or several for the same. Edward Morris:Thanks Mary. So we really don't have the numbers I'm looking for. Mary Wong:The question of "identical match" has attracted a lot of public comments, on both "sides", throughout the whole process of developing the TMCH - from the IRT to STI to the various AGB versions. Mike Rodenbaugh:+1 Susan - this is a key issue for discussion George Kirikos:Fuzzy matches would deter some of the intentional typosquatting. George Kirikos:But, I can see how some less informed people might feel a chilling effect. Sophisticated domain name owners wouldn't be deterred, but not everyone is equally educated. Mike Rodenbaugh:+1 George, there would be some deterrence. Chilling effect is debatable/unproven Mary Wong:Sorry, what will the sub group be doing? Pascal Boehner:+ 1 Susan & Mike: "Identical match" is fundamental, should be discussed by the whole WG George Kirikos:@Mike: I think for the registrant warning, it would need to be different language if it was an exact match, vs if it was just a "fuzzy" match. George Kirikos:(for sunrise, no rights to "fuzzy" versions of a mark) Georges Nahitchevansky:I agree that the identical match issues is one to look into. There have been situations where TMCH has taken an overly narrow view on the issue, which then has implications re sunrise etc. Mary Wong:Note that the Analysis Group's Final Report on the TMCH has some observations on this question as well. Edward Morris:+1 Mary. Was useful. Susan Payne:where are we getting the charter Qs out to? Mark Massey:Perhaps it would be useful to look at all of these questions from the perspective of someone trying to start a business not just existing trademart holders Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:agree Susan...are we publishing something? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):could we try to request IBM person to be there? Jeff Neuman:I would also note that the first hour and a half conflict with the subsequent procedures working group Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the reason is, if the deny it, we might think that the service is not important for IBM John McElwaine:@Jeff maybe we can push it back Jeff Neuman:we tried, but ICANN could not move either meeting Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):we will need IBM representative to avoid Deloitte answering each time - we need to check it with IBM Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Maxim, do we have technical questions? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):yes George Kirikos:Perhaps an email reminding folks of the times, URLs for remote participation, and times in different time zones might help. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it is related to AGB and TMCH , standards of service (downtimes and customer service quality) - it is referenced in TM Clearinghouse part of AGB Mary Wong:@George, we will send out the information George Kirikos:(since the URLs for remote participation are different than our usual link) George Kirikos:Thanks Mary. Mary Wong:@Maxim, it is probably too late to invite IBM unless they are already planning to be in Copenhagen (which I believe they are not). But we have sent them a few questions and are awaiting answers, and we can also invite them to a future call. Jeff Neuman:@KAthy - take comments on email Jeff Neuman:we are thinking Philip Corwin:We shall do our best as co-chairs George Kirikos:March 22? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Maxim, is that related to the TMCH as an RPM and a charter question or more about the integration of TMCH with contracted parties, which might be a better fit for SubPro? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Mary, as I understand we asked about it during 22nd FEB 2017. George Kirikos:March 29th, then. Susan Payne:I'd like to have a substantive discussion on some of these open issues - matching rules Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Kristine, it is about material for those who will look into AGB and TMCH intersections Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 susan David McAuley (RySG):Thanks all, good bye George Kirikos:Bye folks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):thanks all , safe travels Martin Silva Valent:bye bye ! Philip Corwin:bye all. See you in CPH Martin Silva Valent:see u there Paul Tattersfield:bye all

1 0