February 2020 - GNSO-RPM-WG

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 26 February 2019
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 26, 2020

Feb. 26, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 26 February 2019 at 18:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-02-26+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Finalize Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS Individual Proposals: 5 Overarching Questions: ACTION ITEM: Include a reference in the Executive Summary and specifically ask for public comments on the questions in the Next Steps Section. Proposal #15: ACTION ITEM: Incorporate new language from Zak Muskovitch and Claudio Di Gangi: “There was general support in the Working Group for publishing this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report to seek public comment, with some Working Group members supporting the Individual Proposal as drafted. However, some Working Group members expressed opposition in terms of both substance and implementation of the Individual Proposals including the proposed remedies and the definition of “repeat offender” and of “high volume cybersquatting”.” Proposal #22: ACTION ITEM: Revise the questions to: “The Working Group seeks public comment on: 1) the appropriateness of a “loser pays” model; 2) the definition of specific criteria (e.g., “repeat offender” over a defined time period, “high volume cybersquatting”); 3) the specific item(s) that should be paid in a “loser pays” model (e.g., administrative fees, attorneys’ fees), and 4) the enforcement mechanism of the proposed model.” Proposal #31: ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote to cross-reference to original charter question #4 in the annex, but note that the WG has not yet addressed this overarching question, but will do so following the analysis of the public comments on the Initial Report (see Next Steps section). Proposal #33: ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote to link to the MOU for URS Providers. Proposal #34: ACTION ITEM: Indent the sub-paragraphs to make it clear that they are referenced text and add quotes. Then add “The proponent proposed...” at the beginning of the last paragraph. Proposal #36: ACTION ITEM: Add a link to the URS Procedure at the text “Under the URS Procedure...” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. ICANN67 Status: -- First ever virtual meeting. -- Reduced schedule and not the usual number of meetings. -- Logistical and other challenges for supporting a virtual meeting. -- Run through the original Cancun dates and original hours 7-12 March and 9-5 pm local time. -- Most groups will not have weekend sessions. Most are Monday-Thursday. -- We will be able to schedule all of the requisite PDP meetings; but we don’t have the exact times yet. All PDPs are scheduled 9-5 pm, no conflicts with Public Forum or Board meeting. -- Avoiding SubPro/RPMs conflicts. -- GAC has indicated its high priority topics are EPDP and SubPro, so trying to avoid conflicts with the GAC schedule and SubPro/EPDP. 3. Review Revisions from Action Items: TMCH Individual Proposals for which the Working Group is Seeking Input:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fh6KnBvqH78Pmo7qUBtR3JyIIvUifJ-8h… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Proposals #2 and #3: -- Added in the intro and on page 4: “The rationale provided by the proponent did not receive support or endorsement by the full Working Group. In some cases, some Working Group members had concerns about the accuracy and validity of some proponents’ rationale. “ Proposals #4 and #5: Added a footnote in the context/deliberations pointing to the section of the AGB: “Section 3.6 of the Applicant Guidebook, which states: "Data supporting entry into the Clearinghouse of marks that constitute intellectual property of types other than those set forth in sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 above shall be determined by the registry operator and the Clearinghouse based on the services any given registry operator chooses to provide." Proposal #6: Added a footnote: “For example, a WG member noted that several registries had experienced downtime issues when accessing the TMDB". Proposal #7: -- Added the word “sharply” in front of “diverging”: The Working Group had [sharply] diverging opinions on whether the TMCH Database should remain confidential or become open and searchable. -- Changed the word “validated” to “included”: “On the other hand, Working Group members who supported this proposal thought that allowing the TMCH Database to be searchable could yield information that may be used to flag trademarks that ought not to have been [included], e.g. via objection proceedings initiated with the TMCH provider.” 4. Finalize Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS Individual Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk79niPOuURI… [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk79niPOuURI…> 5 Overarching Questions: -- Do we need to ask for comments on the specific 5 questions in the Initial Report? -- The questions are in the next steps and we can ask for comments, as well as add a reference in the Executive Summary. ACTION ITEM: Include a reference in the Executive Summary and specifically ask for public comments on the questions in the Next Steps Section. Proposal #15: ACTION ITEM: Incorporate new language from Zak Muskovitch and Claudio Di Gangi: “There was general support in the Working Group for publishing this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report to seek public comment, with some Working Group members supporting the Individual Proposal as drafted. However, some Working Group members expressed opposition in terms of both substance and implementation of the Individual Proposals including the proposed remedies and the definition of “repeat offender” and of “high volume cybersquatting”.” Proposal #16: No changes from the WG. Proposal #22: -- Comment: “I thought we were going to ask the public about the appropriateness of a "loser pays" model, as well as specific criteria (e.g. "repeat offender" or "high-volume cybersquatting") and enforcement mechanisms.” -- The WG question currently presupposes a loser pay model as it formulates the questions for PC so anonymous comment questions that it seems - seems hand-in-hand and fair. -- I agree that the broader question (appropriateness of the model) is material to ask. ACTION ITEM: Revise the questions to: “The Working Group seeks public comment on: 1) the appropriateness of a “loser pays” model; 2) the definition of specific criteria (e.g., “repeat offender” over a defined time period, “high volume cybersquatting”); 3) the specific item(s) that should be paid in a “loser pays” model (e.g., administrative fees, attorneys’ fees), and 4) the enforcement mechanism of the proposed model.” Proposal #26: No changes from the WG. Proposal #27: No changes from the WG. Proposal #28: No changes from the WG. Proposal #29: No changes from the WG. Proposal #31: -- Should flag that this is a charter question that the RPMs PDP WG was asked to consider. ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote to cross-reference to original charter question #4 in the annex, but note that the WG has not yet addressed this overarching question, but will do so following the analysis of the public comments on the Initial Report (see Next Steps section). Proposal #33: ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote to link to the MOU for URS Providers. Proposal #34: ACTION ITEM: Indent the sub-paragraphs to make it clear that they are referenced text and add quotes. Then add “The proponent proposed...” at the beginning of the last paragraph. Proposal #36: -- WG members agreed that it would be helpful to include a link to the URS Procedure at the beginning of the proposal rationale. -- There is a footnote that proposal #36 supersedes proposals #9 and #10. Those proposals included data in their rationale, but #36 does not reference that data nor is it based on it. -- There is no reference to data in the context of the WG’s deliberations since data was not part of proposal #36 and so the WG did not discuss any data. -- One WG member suggested referencing the data from proposal #10, but other WG members expressed concerns that such a reference would be out of context since the WG is requesting comment on proposal #36, not proposals #9 or #10. -- Several WG members agreed that calling out in the footnote that proposals #9 and #10 are superseded by proposal #36 is sufficient reference. All proposals can, in any case, be viewed on the WG wiki. ACTION ITEM: Add a link to the URS Procedure at the text “Under the URS Procedure...” 5. Review Project Change Request and Revised Work Plan: -- See attached form. -- Submitted to GNSO Council on 10 February. -- Council considered on 20 February and councilors have until 27 February to provide comments. Council leadership will notify RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs of approval by 28 February. -- Timeline is extended for 5.5 months to allow more time to review public comments and prepare the final report; deadline to submit Final Report to Council is mid-October, but Co-Chairs will develop a work plan that will assume a deadline of mid-September. -- The WG cannot request further Project Change Requests. -- Working Group co-chairs (1) will commit to work together (practically, this may mean allowing a decision to be made by two of the three as opposed to all three co-chairs), with the common goal to complete Phase One on time, understanding that there may be consequences for the work (e.g., suspension of the PDP) if this is not done; and (2) are willing to be firm with the Working Group, and do whatever needs to be done, in order to deliver the Final Report in a timely manner; and (3) will develop a detailed plan to produce the Initial Report, review comments and produce a Final Report and clearly communicate this process to working group members. -- Because there is no travel to ICANN67, the WG will meet on 04 March and begin to discuss topics that would otherwise have been begun at ICANN67: TM-PDDRP and Additional Marketplace RPMs; so WG may not need all 4 sessions at ICANN67. -- Staff confirms that the WG will be able to complete the review of the Initial Report during ICANN67 so that the report can be published for public comment on 18 March. -- Given that the report is due on 18 March, there will be no meeting that day.

1 0

Post Call | RPMs PDP WG | Wednesday, 26 February 2020
by Julie Bisland Feb. 26, 2020

Feb. 26, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 26 February 2020 at 18:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/GBOJBw>(attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. With kind regards, Julie

1 0

Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 26 February 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 25, 2020

Feb. 25, 2020

Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials below for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 26 February 2020 at 18:00-19:30 UTC. As is the GNSO's practice, the document is being circulated for the purpose of ensuring that WG members are comfortable with the format and overall coverage of the recommendations and deliberations. Please remember that the Initial Report is meant to focus on specific recommendations/proposals, with brief, relevant, accompanying rationale, rather than be a comprehensive record of the WG's deliberations. WG members are reminded that comments in the Google docs should be limited only to error corrections that you believe are necessary. The documents will be open for comment until COB Tuesday, 25 February. After that time they will be closed to comment. While they are closed comments will not be visible, but they will be displayed during the WG meeting. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. ICANN67 Status 3. Review Revisions from Action Items: TMCH Individual Proposals for which the Working Group is Seeking Input:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fh6KnBvqH78Pmo7qUBtR3JyIIvUifJ-8h… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 4. Finalize Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS Individual Proposals:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> – Start at Proposal #16 5. Review Project Change Request and Revised Work Plan (attached) 6. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

5 7

On ICANN, RPMs, and trademark
by Michael Karanicolas Feb. 25, 2020

Feb. 25, 2020

Hi all, Of possible interest to this working group, my latest paper, "The New Cybersquatters: The Evolution of Trademark Enforcement in the Domain Name Space", has just been published in the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal. It discusses ICANN's rights-protection mechanisms in the context of broader trademark law principles (and there's even a few cameos from folks in the working group). If you're interested, you can download it at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3528237 Cheers, Michael Karanicolas Resident Fellow Yale Law School *The domain name space has become a particularly contentious area of trademark enforcement as a result of the growth of online commerce, an intense competition for popular domain names, and new conceptual challenges stemming from the borderless and textual nature of the medium. In response, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”), a global non-profit which oversees the domain-name space, has implemented a highly sophisticated set of rights-protection mechanisms. This Article examines the scope of trademark protections applied under ICANN’s rights protection mechanisms to demonstrate that they have evolved far beyond their traditional consumer protection function; indeed, they have morphed into offensive brand management tools, whose application in the global domain name space vastly exceeds the protections that are available under domestic legal frameworks. The Article begins by introducing ICANN and its main trademark protection instruments, namely the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, the Uniform Rapid Suspension, and the Trademark Clearinghouse, before demonstrating the divergence between protections under these systems and the protections under domestic legal frameworks. The result is that trademark owners turn to ICANN for rights and remedies that would not be available from ordinary sovereigns, embodying a major expansion of trademark protections. The Article concludes by outlining the contours of ongoing discussions re-examining these mechanisms, and the challenges in curbing this maximalist view of trademark law.*

3 2

ICANN67 FAQs
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 25, 2020

Feb. 25, 2020

Dear All, Further to the message below, please find the ICANN67 FAQs posted here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann67-faq-2020-02-24-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 5:01 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] ICANN67 Announcement: ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting Dear All, If you have not already seen it, please see the announcement from ICANN on the change from ICANN67 to a remote public meeting: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-02-19-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…>. The announcement also is copied below. The Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will be meeting starting tomorrow to discuss the schedule for the remote meeting, including for the RPMs PDP WG sessions. Further information will be provided when available. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director === ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting LOS ANGELES – 19 February 2020 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today announced that its ICANN67 Public Meeting, which was to be held in Cancún, Mexico, will now be held via remote participation-only. This decision was made as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, considered a public health emergency of international concern by the World Health Organization [who.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.who.int_&d=DwMGaQ&…>. The meeting, scheduled for 7-12 March 2020, marks the first time in ICANN's history that it will hold a Public Meeting solely with remote participation. Each ICANN Public Meeting attracts thousands of attendees from more than 150 countries. With cases in at least 26 of those countries, there is the potential of bringing the virus to Cancún and into the ICANN meeting site. If this were to happen, there could be accidental exposure of the virus to attendees, staff, and others who come in contact with an infected individual. COVID-19 continues to be a rapidly evolving global situation, with new cases emerging daily. "This is a decision that the ICANN Board has been considering since the outbreak was first announced and it is one that we haven't taken lightly," said Maarten Botterman, ICANN Board Chair. "We know that changing this meeting to remote participation-only will have an impact on and cause disruption to our community; however, this decision is about people. Protecting the health and safety of the ICANN community is our top priority." The community will have many questions about travel arrangements, scheduling, and other meeting-related issues. ICANN will consult with community leaders and groups to focus the virtual program on the most essential sessions, and will publish a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) page to https://icann.org [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMGa…> in the coming days. ICANN thanks its regional partners in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) who had worked tirelessly to host this meeting in Cancún. We appreciate their understanding and we look forward to returning to the LAC region for ICANN70 in 2021. Remote participation is an integral part of any ICANN Public Meeting, but it will be vastly expanded for ICANN67, and will leverage the robust technology platform in use by the community today. Those interested in attending the remote meeting should still register here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/cancun67>, if they have not done so previously. To learn more about remote participation, visit ICANN Public Meetings<https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote-participation>. ICANN will continue to make further announcements as circumstances warrant. In the meantime, ICANN org will hold a webinar to provide a short update and take questions. The webinar [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_my_icann…> will be held on Thursday, 20 February at 1800 UTC. ICANN also is reviewing upcoming meetings, such as the GDD Summit in Paris and the ICANN68 Meeting in Malaysia. So far, no decisions have been made and these are proceeding as planned. ICANN will keep the community informed of any changes.

1 0

ICANN67 Announcement: ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

Dear All, If you have not already seen it, please see the announcement from ICANN on the change from ICANN67 to a remote public meeting: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-02-19-en. The announcement also is copied below. The Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will be meeting starting tomorrow to discuss the schedule for the remote meeting, including for the RPMs PDP WG sessions. Further information will be provided when available. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director === ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting LOS ANGELES – 19 February 2020 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today announced that its ICANN67 Public Meeting, which was to be held in Cancún, Mexico, will now be held via remote participation-only. This decision was made as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, considered a public health emergency of international concern by the World Health Organization<https://www.who.int/>. The meeting, scheduled for 7-12 March 2020, marks the first time in ICANN's history that it will hold a Public Meeting solely with remote participation. Each ICANN Public Meeting attracts thousands of attendees from more than 150 countries. With cases in at least 26 of those countries, there is the potential of bringing the virus to Cancún and into the ICANN meeting site. If this were to happen, there could be accidental exposure of the virus to attendees, staff, and others who come in contact with an infected individual. COVID-19 continues to be a rapidly evolving global situation, with new cases emerging daily. "This is a decision that the ICANN Board has been considering since the outbreak was first announced and it is one that we haven't taken lightly," said Maarten Botterman, ICANN Board Chair. "We know that changing this meeting to remote participation-only will have an impact on and cause disruption to our community; however, this decision is about people. Protecting the health and safety of the ICANN community is our top priority." The community will have many questions about travel arrangements, scheduling, and other meeting-related issues. ICANN will consult with community leaders and groups to focus the virtual program on the most essential sessions, and will publish a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) page to https://icann.org<https://www.icann.org/> in the coming days. ICANN thanks its regional partners in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) who had worked tirelessly to host this meeting in Cancún. We appreciate their understanding and we look forward to returning to the LAC region for ICANN70 in 2021. Remote participation is an integral part of any ICANN Public Meeting, but it will be vastly expanded for ICANN67, and will leverage the robust technology platform in use by the community today. Those interested in attending the remote meeting should still register here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/cancun67>, if they have not done so previously. To learn more about remote participation, visit ICANN Public Meetings<https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote-participation>. ICANN will continue to make further announcements as circumstances warrant. In the meantime, ICANN org will hold a webinar to provide a short update and take questions. The webinar<https://icann.zoom.us/my/icann67prepweek> will be held on Thursday, 20 February at 1800 UTC. ICANN also is reviewing upcoming meetings, such as the GDD Summit in Paris and the ICANN68 Meeting in Malaysia. So far, no decisions have been made and these are proceeding as planned. ICANN will keep the community informed of any changes.

1 0

ICANN67 Update
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

Dear all, ICANN org will provide a short update and answer questions about ICANN67 today at 18:00 UTC. Please join: https://icann.zoom.us/my/icann67prepweek ICANN org will continue to make further announcements as circumstances warrant. Thank you.

1 0

Post Call | RPMs PDP WG | Wednesday, 19 February 2020
by Julie Bisland Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call held on Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 18:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/FhOJBw>(attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw>. Thank you. With kind regards, Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 19 February 2019
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 19 February 2019 at 18:00 UTC. Staff will post these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-02-19+Review+of+all+R…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: 1. Continue Discussion of TMCH Individual Proposals for which the Working Group is Seeking Input, starting with Proposals #2 and #3: Proposals #2 and #3: ACTION ITEM: Staff can review the transcript to ensure that the concerns of some WG members with respect to the accuracy of the rationale are incorporated. Staff can add a specific paragraph at the top of this section, highlighting the fact that while the WG agreed to put the individual proposals and their rationale (as submitted) out for input, the WG has not agreed on either the accuracy of or the views expressed in the proposals. Proposals #4 and #5: ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the context/deliberations pointing to the section of the AGB: “Section 3.6 of the Applicant Guidebook, which states: "Data supporting entry into the Clearinghouse of marks that constitute intellectual property of types other than those set forth in sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 above shall be determined by the registry operator and the Clearinghouse based on the services any given registry operator chooses to provide." Proposal #6: -- Re: “In this context, some Working Group members expressed concerns about operational considerations due to there being only a single provider.” There was no data that the WG verified. Maxim Alzoba provided anecdotal information, which the WG could not verify. ACTION ITEM: Staff to add a footnote to the sentence as follows: “For example, a WG member noted that several registries had experienced downtime issues when accessing the TMDB". Proposal #7: ACTION ITEMS: 1. Add the word “sharply” in front of “diverging”: The Working Group had [sharply] diverging opinions on whether the TMCH Database should remain confidential or become open and searchable. 2. Change the word “validated” to “included”: “On the other hand, Working Group members who supported this proposal thought that allowing the TMCH Database to be searchable could yield information that may be used to flag trademarks that ought not to have been [included], e.g. via objection proceedings initiated with the TMCH provider. 2. Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS Individual Proposals: Proposal #15: ACTION ITEM: Include this text as a footnote: “The Working Group confirmed that this proposal incorporated and superseded URS Individual Proposal #14, of which its rationale applied to this proposal.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: 2. Finalize Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: TMCH Structure and Scope: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-TH7WopFauhEU1Z0zCjQp26s3S8d6J3SnLLOnTf… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> -- Review Action Items for TMCH Recommendation #1 The WG reviewed the revised text based on the following action items. There were no further changes: Recommendation Text: ACTION ITEM: Clarify the language to not make it sounds like open questions: Take out the word “whether” as it makes them sound like open questions. Context Text: 1. TM+50: ACTION ITEM: Add a link to the current rule. 2. Exact Match: ACTION ITEM: Change “current” to “correct”. Also need to be consistent with TM Claims recommendation #6. 3. Limiting the Sunrise & Claims RPMs to certain gTLDs for trademarks containing dictionary term(s) ACTION ITEM: Delete the question mark. ACTION ITEM: Clarify the text and perhaps break it into two sentences. Changed to: “The Working Group had diverging opinions on this matter[, which concerned the availability of Sunrise and Trademark Claim services for trademarks that contain dictionary term(s).] In the absence of wide support for a change to the status quo, the Working Group agreed that the scope of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs should not be modified to limit their application, in the specific case of a trademark containing dictionary term(s), to gTLDs that are related to the categories of goods and services for which the dictionary term(s) within those that trademarks are protected.” 3. Continue Discussion of TMCH Individual Proposals for which the Working Group is Seeking Input, starting with Proposal #2:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fh6KnBvqH78Pmo7qUBtR3JyIIvUifJ-8hzX9dcJruuA/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Proposals #2 and #3: -- Make it clear that the rationale being provided is the rationale of the proponents with no editing by the WG or staff. Not all members of the WG agree that the rationale is a factual statement. -- On Proposal #2 – reference to AGB and STI rules: example where there is a factual inaccuracy in the rationale. The STI rules were adopted, but for public comment and not as policy. The AGB reflects the final outcome after the feedback from the community was incorporated. -- Need to make sure the community is aware that there are differences of opinion. Put it in the introductory paragraph and in the deliberations that some WG members take issue with this characterization of the rationale. ACTION: Staff can review the transcript to ensure that the concerns of some WG members with respect to the accuracy of the rationale are incorporated. Staff can add a specific paragraph at the top of this section, highlighting the fact that while the WG agreed to put the individual proposals and their rationale (as submitted) out for input, the WG has not agreed on either the accuracy of or the views expressed in the proposals. Proposals #4 and #5: ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote in the context/deliberations pointing to the section of the AGB: “Section 3.6 of the Applicant Guidebook, which states: "Data supporting entry into the Clearinghouse of marks that constitute intellectual property of types other than those set forth in sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 above shall be determined by the registry operator and the Clearinghouse based on the services any given registry operator chooses to provide." Proposal #6: -- re: “In this context, some Working Group members expressed concerns about operational considerations due to there being only a single provider.” There was no data that the WG verified. Maxim Alzoba provided anecdotal information. ACTION ITEM: Staff to add a footnote to the sentence as follows: “For example, a WG member noted that several registries had experienced downtime issues when accessing the TMDB".” Proposal #7: ACTION ITEMS: 1. Add the word “sharply” in front of “diverging”: The Working Group had [sharply] diverging opinions on whether the TMCH Database should remain confidential or become open and searchable. 2. Change the word “validated” to “included”: “On the other hand, Working Group members who supported this proposal thought that allowing the TMCH Database to be searchable could yield information that may be used to flag trademarks that ought not to have been [included], e.g. via objection proceedings initiated with the TMCH provider. 4. Discussion of Deliberations of the Working Group: URS Individual Proposals:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Proposal #15: ACTION ITEM: Include this text as a footnote: “The Working Group confirmed that this proposal incorporated and superseded URS Individual Proposal #14, of which its rationale applied to this proposal.”

1 0

#12 RPMs
by Maxim Alzoba Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

Dates of the issues with TMCH: Cases can be requested via ICANN GDD (IBM has own case system) 1. between 02SEP2019 and 26AUG2019 some LORDN files were not uploading to TMDB answer from IBM " We are not sure why you got such errors. It seems to us that the data sent did not reach our servers properly. " 2. between 23 August 2018 and 26 September 2018. Text of the notification > Earlier this year, ICANN org was alerted to a configuration issue within the Trademark Database (TMDB). Based on research by the TMDB’s administrator, IBM, this issue was introduced to the TMDB on 23 August 2018 and affected a limited number of gTLDs that were in the Claims Period between 23 August 2018 and 26 September 2018. This issue may have resulted in registrars not displaying the required Claims Notice to the then potential registrant and the registry of the affected gTLDs not reporting the registration to the TMDB. > > By receiving this communication, ICANN org has identified $REGISTRY as having TLD(s) with domain name registration(s) that have been impacted by the issue. The impacted domain name(s) are listed in the attached .csv file. > > Recommended Action: > To facilitate providing registrants with the required Claims Notice information, ICANN org is requesting that $REGISTRY communicate with the registrar(s) of the impacted domain name(s). For your convenience, ICANN org has prepared messaging for you to use when communicating the issue to impacted registrars. It explains the issue and includes the necessary next steps for the registrar and registrant. > > Once the registrars have completed the needed actions, $REGISTRY can incorporate the resulting data into what would be the standard flow for reporting the registrations to the TMDB via the List of Registered Domain Names (LORDN) file, which will result in notification to the trademark holders/agents. ICANN org is requesting that $REGISTRY submit any LORDN files to the TMDB ninety (90) days from the date of this letter. > > To complete these actions within the requested time frame, the following sequence of activities should be completed: > > • each respective registrar to be notified > • the registrar will need to notify the respective registrant and send the Claims Notice > • the registrant will have sixty (60) days to acknowledge or reject the Claims Notice and for the $REGISTRY to upload the LORDN files to the TMDB. > > Because the Claims Notice information will be dated after the registration, a warning message will be returned upon submission of the LORDN file to the TMDB, but the file will be processed successfully. > > ICANN org appreciates your assistance with this matter and is available to discuss these instructions or answer any questions about these recommended actions. > Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)

1 0