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

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week
by Paul Keating Jan. 9, 2017

Jan. 9, 2017

Why not ensure that the survey is being sent to the providers as well? From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 12:44 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week > Dear Mary, Dear Colleagues, > > Thanks for putting together the survey. I believe this may somewhat help > collect more responses, but would like to reiterate a comment I made in the > chat (although it got no traction at the time, but my audio was limited) > during the last call. > > My organization, Afnic, is one of the few who submitted a response to the > survey so far. We did it on behalf of one of our clients, the City of Paris. I > have significant concerns about reaching out directly to registries, for the > following reasons : > - The questions are extremely technical, and most of our clients > would be completely lost > > - There is no clear benefit for registries to invest time in > answering this survey. The TMCH is often ³dealt with² by a partner / provider. > > > I understand the need to collect data from registries, but would suggest > either of two options : > 1) Consider that the low level of responses is an information in itself, > and leave it at that. > > 2) Reach out to registry service providers rather than registries to > collect more meaningful data. > > > Just my two cents as a respondent to the survey. > > Best > Mathieu > > > De : gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] De > la part de Mary Wong > Envoyé : vendredi 6 janvier 2017 23:08 > À : gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > Objet : [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week > > Dear all, > > As requested during the Working Group call held earlier this week, staff has > put all the questions that were sent to the Registries Stakeholder Group by > the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team into a survey format. You can preview and > test it here: > https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=twhcvzt1lfNFkO_2BF7lNnr7iX41Ca6g… > 2BEqGy7WKuGCzlJFTYJqbEcIQPe6n2COQ. > > Please note that while we have retained almost all of the text of the original > questions, in a few places we have rearranged their order or converted a > question into a statement inviting comment. However, we do not believe we have > changed any of the scope or intent of the questions, and we have not otherwise > edited, deleted or added any questions. > > Also as agreed on the call, staff will work with the co-chairs to transmit > this survey to specific registry operators (especially those offering blocking > mechanism services who have not yet responded to the original solicitation for > feedback) and via the registry members of this Working Group. > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

2 1

Follow up from WG call this week
by Mary Wong Jan. 9, 2017

Jan. 9, 2017

Dear all, As requested during the Working Group call held earlier this week, staff has put all the questions that were sent to the Registries Stakeholder Group by the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team into a survey format. You can preview and test it here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=twhcvzt1lfNFkO_2BF7lNnr7iX41Ca6g…. Please note that while we have retained almost all of the text of the original questions, in a few places we have rearranged their order or converted a question into a statement inviting comment. However, we do not believe we have changed any of the scope or intent of the questions, and we have not otherwise edited, deleted or added any questions. Also as agreed on the call, staff will work with the co-chairs to transmit this survey to specific registry operators (especially those offering blocking mechanism services who have not yet responded to the original solicitation for feedback) and via the registry members of this Working Group. 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

2 1

FW: Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
by Phil Corwin Jan. 4, 2017

Jan. 4, 2017

FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing. For more background see http://www.circleid.com/posts/20161223_heres_the_largest_urs_complaint_ever… and http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1703352D.htm Best regards, 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

13 24

Proposed agenda and documents for RPM Review WG call on 4 January 2017
by Mary Wong Jan. 3, 2017

Jan. 3, 2017

Dear all, The proposed agenda and documents for the first Working Group call this year – scheduled for 4 January 2017 at 1700 UTC – is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review responses to TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team questions received to date from New gTLD Registries (see document attached) 3. Agree on approach to final TMCH Charter questions (see document attached) 4. Next steps/next meeting Wishing you all a happy new year, and looking forward to resuming our work this week, 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: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 18:42 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW: Updated TMCH Charter questions Dear all, Please find attached an updated table of the proposed list of TMCH Charter questions, edited following the Working Group call of 21 December. For ease of reference, in addition to the redlined table (which shows changes made on the last two calls), a second document showing the full list of final questions, numbered chronologically, is also attached. As agreed on the call, and for the attention of those Working Group members who were not able to be on the call - please review the proposed final list of questions, and send any comments you may have to this mailing list, no later than 31 December 2016. 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: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 18:08 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 21 December Dear all, The proposed agenda for the Working Group call on Wednesday 21 December at 2200 UTC, which will be the final call for this calendar year, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete review of proposed TMCH Charter questions (see document circulated on 15 December) 3. [if time permits] review registry responses received to date on questions sent by TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team (see document circulated on 13 December) 4. Co-chairs’ recommendation for new rotating meeting time 5. 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: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 13:35 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated table of TMCH Charter Questions Dear all, Please find attached an updated version of the TMCH Charter Questions table, which staff has prepared based on the Working Group discussion during the Working Group call this past Wednesday. In addition to the updates made to Category 1 Question 4 (on design marks), Category 2 Questions 1 and 2 (rejection of TMCH submissions and handling of cancelled trademarks), and Category 3 Questions 1, 2 and 3 (balancing of rights, the generic/scope issue, and TM+50), we have retained in this version the changes made last week to Category 1 Questions 1-3 so that you can review all the agreed changes to date. Please note that a few Working Group member comments remain to be either considered or responses finalized – we have retained these in the document as well for your easy reference. We have yet to discuss and finalize the following remaining questions: Category 3 Question 4, and the questions in Category 4 and Category 5. 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: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 01:31 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on 14 December Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, scheduled for 14 December at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continue discussion of proposed TMCH Charter questions (see attached document) 3. [If time permits] Review responses received to TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team list of questions sent to New gTLD Registry Operators (see attached) 4. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2: the attached document contains updates made by staff based on the Working Group’s discussions on the call last week. It also includes the co-chairs’ proposed compromise language on the “generic terms” issue (Category 3, Question 2) that was circulated to the mailing list earlier today, and a few additional suggestions made to the mailing list since the last call and as of today (13 December). For Agenda Item #3: the attached document is a compilation of responses received so far from three registry operators (Public Interest Registry, Donuts, and Afnic) to the list of questions for New gTLD Registry Operators that was prepared by the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team. Staff will continue to update the document as and when we receive any additional responses from other registries. 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

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Meeting rotation times for the RPM Review Working Group
by Jonathan Agmon Dec. 27, 2016

Dec. 27, 2016

Your and the Group’s efforts are well appreciated. I hope this can make sense to everybody. [cid:SANLogSmallNew_485a3de7-c8c5-4ec6-b34d-6de68607f295.png] Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森) Advocate, Director Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York) jonathan.agmon(a)ip-law.legal<mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal> www.ip-law.legal<http://www.ip-law.legal> T SG +65 6532 2577 T US +1 212 999 6180 T IL +972 9 950 7000 F IL +972 9 950 5500 Soroker Agmon Nordman Pte Ltd. 133 New Bridge Road, #13-02, 059413 SINGAPORE 8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425 4672408 Herzliya, ISRAEL This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 12:41 AM To: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky(a)riskiq.net>; Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon(a)ip-law.legal> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org; gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: Meeting rotation times for the RPM Review Working Group Dear Jonathan (Agmon), Jonathan (Matkowsky) and everyone, I hope you will be pleased to know that the Working Group co-chairs have been discussing this topic and reviewing the usefulness of our current meeting rotation times. Following discussion with those Working Group members who were able to attend the call yesterday, the Working Group co-chairs would like to propose a change for our meeting times, as follows: Week 1: 1700 UTC (no change) Week 2: 1800 UTC (no change) Week 3: 1700 UTC (no change) Week 4: 0400 UTC (change from 2200 UTC) We invite all Working Group members to provide feedback on this proposed change. Please note that, given the geographic spread of our membership, the fact that a large majority are based in North America followed by Europe, there is unfortunately no single time that will work for everyone. The idea to hold one out of four meetings in a much more APAC-friendly time zone seems to be an equitable solution, given the circumstances. The co-chairs intend to review the rotation again around the time of the ICANN58 meeting in March 2017. Assuming there are no major objections, staff will go ahead and implement the proposed change with effect from January2017. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky(a)riskiq.net<mailto:jonathan.matkowsky@riskiq.net>> Date: Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 09:56 To: Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon(a)ip-law.legal<mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group I had the same experience last night when I tried to stay up for the call and intended to make it, but fell asleep because it was in middle of the night. So I would like to be added to that column too please. Thank you! [http://safe.riskiq.com/rs/455-NHF-420/images/RiskIQ_Logo_Blue_Vertical.png]…]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__riskiq.com_&d=DgMFaQ&c=…> jonathan matkowsky, vp – ip & brand security usa:: 1.347.467.1193 | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766 emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831 company reg. no. 514805332[havarot.justice.gov.il]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__havarot.justice.gov.il_…> 11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel [http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448744755-png/Email_Signature/twit…]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_riskiq&d=D…>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448719740-png/Email_Signature/face…]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_pages…>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448744760-png/Email_Signature/link…]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compa…>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448719735-png/Email_Signature/goog…]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__plus.google.com_-2BRis…> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon(a)ip-law.legal<mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal>> wrote: Dear Michelle and Marry, First I apologize for cc’ing the entire list to this email but I think it is only fair that this would not be a private request. The attendance list is a bit of a sore spot for me since I joined this WG. As I noted before I do want to attend the calls but all the calls are outside the time zone for the Far East. They are always at 1am or 6am for Singapore/Beijing time. For Australia I think it is even worse. It is therefore unreasonable for those of us in this part of the world to join. It is also a bit odd for us to continuously apologize for not making the calls. After all there is nothing to apologize for. Can I therefore please ask you to add another category to the attendance. I suggest we call it “out of time zone” or something to this effect. You can place my name there and perhaps others from this part of the planet who so request. I hope this will better reflect the fact that I (and perhaps others) would like to join the calls but we cannot. I appreciate your kind consideration of this request. Thanks, [cid:image001.png@01D25EDE.EC32D270] Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森) Advocate, Director Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York) jonathan.agmon(a)ip-law.legal<mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal> www.ip-law.legal[ip-law.legal]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ip-2Dlaw.legal&d=Dg…> T SG +65 6532 2577<tel:+65%206532%202577> T US +1 212 999 6180 T IL +972 9 950 7000 F IL +972 9 950 5500 Soroker Agmon Nordman Pte Ltd. 133 New Bridge Road, #13-02, 059413 SINGAPORE 8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425 4672408 Herzliya, ISRAEL This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 11:30 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 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 December 2016 at 22:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/BJ3DAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> MP3:http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-21dec16-en.mp3[audio.icann.…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** 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/BJ3DAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter Adobe Connect chat transcript for 21 December 2016: Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 22:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Philip Corwin:Hi Michelle. I am uncharacteristically early ;-) Michelle DeSmyter:No worries - glad to have you! :) Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome Maxim! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello Michelle, Philip Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):will type instead of using mic - it is 1AM Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for me Michelle DeSmyter:Ouch - sounds good Maxim George Kirikos:Hi folks. Paul Tattersfield:Hi Everyeone Steve Levy:HI all. Happy holidays! Mary Wong:@Phil, we have the redlined version ready. Let us know if you want us to change to it. Mary Wong:We are at the bottom of page 5, for those who have just joined Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):reasonably priced to allow for protection of small local businesses? George Kirikos:Accessible = affordable? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think affordable is too limiting Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:There may be other hinderances at play Heather Forrest:Agree with Kristine that affordable is too narrow a term Jeff Neuman:ease of use? Griffin Barnett:Agree that "access" would potentially include cost, as well as some of the things Phil mentioned such as language, etc. George Kirikos:I think the TMCH is translated into more than 10 languages, see top right of https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademark-2Dclearin… Kurt Pritz:I think guidance for this question comes from the last prepositional clause: "in developing countries." Paul Tattersfield:Can we change ‘trademark owners’ to ‘rights holders’? Because it’s important to provide guidance for marks protected by statue and treaty as well as trademarks. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:The dictionary says accessible means: capable of being used, influenced, seen, understood, appreciated. I think that word is fine. Heather Forrest:usable? susan payne:Agree with Paul's replacement to rights holders Griffin Barnett:Agree we should keep to "accessible" Kurt Pritz:Maybe revese the sentence: Can those in developing countries readily access trademark clearinghouse services (as compared to other regions)? Kathy Kleiman:Why would we change trademark owners to rights holders? Griffin Barnett:No objection to "rights holders" Paul Tattersfield:to include 6ter marks Kathy Mary Wong:On 4.1, note the Sub Team suggestion to share the WG findings on this with the New gTLD SubPro WG. Steve Levy:I like the term "confidential" Petter Rindforth:confidential seems better describe what we mean susan payne:I think we all understand closed = confidential Laurie Anderson:Closed seems to be misleading to the general public Kathy Kleiman:Tx Paul Jeff Neuman:Competition affects cost; bringing the costs down could increase use and effectiveness George Kirikos: 5.1 is about costs. One alternative to multiple providers is to have regular competitive tenders. Steve Levy:Although I think TMCH competition is rather impractical, I feel it shoudl be opened up as a matter of principle Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:If that's the case, then I suggest that costs will come out of our investigation as an issue. I'm sure we'll get data on that. And if cost is a problem, then I think competition is a valid solution. Jeff Neuman:I offer no opinion on the question of who should address :) Jeff Neuman:I will only offer the opinion that this group has the relevant expertise to understand the TMCH and the implications of having multiple providers. Looking at the membership of this PDP WG we have a lot of trademark owners and users of the TMCH. So to me it makes sense to be here. Steve Levy:Hasn't Deloitte actually lost money on its TMCH operation? Heather Forrest:Is CCT looking into this issue? susan payne:Hi, I would point out that the WG suggested 2 alternative options for language on this Mary Wong:Several WG members have expressed a preference for Option 2. Jon Nevett:@Steve -- we alone paid them about $1M -- can't believe that they have lost $ susan payne:ICANN paid them too! George Kirikos:Hollywood accounting? :-) susan payne:old hand Griffin Barnett:I would support a further revised version of Cat 5 Q 1: “Taking into consideration cost, reliability, global reach, diversity of services, consistency, and other possible factors, would it be desirable and practical to have more than one provider for the TMCH services? Why or why not?” Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Proposal 2 focuses on the question: Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Proposal 2 focuses on the question: "what is the problem" rather than suggesting a list.... susan payne:I prefer 2 Steve Levy:I also voted for Proposal 2 susan payne:aha, for reasons Kristine is giving Heather Forrest:I prefer the open-endedness of 2 Kurt Pritz:I prefer 1 as it delineates issues Petter Rindforth:I support Griffins suggested version Griffin Barnett:Proposal 2 wording seems to presuppose that there are concerns with a single provider of TMCH services, that's my only concern about that formulation Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Griffin, people from the community came up with this question, so it's safe to assume SOMEONE thinks there's a problem. :) Vinzenz Heussler:Griffin Barnett combined 1 and 2 rather clever Heather Forrest:Mary has her hand up Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm not following that - visual learner. Can someone capture Phil's most recent suggestion in writing? Kathy Kleiman:I like Phil's compromise wording Kurt Pritz:@ Mary - we are perilously close to agreement - cmonsensus Vinzenz Heussler:it's in the agenda/notes on the right side, isn't it Kurt Pritz:@ Mary "consensus" Griffin Barnett:Fine with the latest compromise wording David McAuley (RySG):Sometimes hard for notes on right to keep up with speedy speakers Paul Tattersfield:Does the current single operator nature of the TMCH optimize operational considerations as cost, reliability, global reach, and service diversity and consistency, or should significant changes be considered? Griffin Barnett:@Kurt -- I thought "cmonsensus" was intentionally clever Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Proposal 4 was Phil's right? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I support that. Mary Wong:Proposal 3 was from Griffin, Proposal 4 is Phil's suggestion Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:thanks Mary, Santa better be kind to you... Laurie Anderson:Supporting Proposal 4 Lillian Fosteris:I like Proposal 4 Griffin Barnett:Agree you can remove "Why or why not" from my proposal -- it is implied by the initial question Mary Wong:I count 14 in favor of Proposal 4 Heather Forrest:Are we not taking this out to other members of the WG? I misunderstood perhaps - thought the straw poll was going out to the list? Mary Wong:@Heather, we will send out a note highlighting that this is the proposed final set of TMCH Charter questions Vinzenz Heussler:costs proportionate to benefits? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):have we seen a single review of TMCH activities from financial perspective? David McAuley (RySG):it sounds like proportionate among those three David McAuley (RySG):icann, rights holders, and community George Kirikos:Should list more stakeholders, e.g. registries, registrars, registrants, etc. Chris Thomas:proportional? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 George Lillian Fosteris:+1 Georege Lillian Fosteris:George* Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 George susan payne:Agree George but I think that;'s intended by community David McAuley (RySG):I agree then with the idea of listing registries, registrars, registrant Heather Forrest:Should we split the question into multiple parts to encourage a reply on each stakeholder? Paul Tattersfield:Support George Kirikos:If they're part of "community", then they might get diluted by 1/3rd. David McAuley (RySG):registrants are part of conmunity as well Mary Wong:We got it, Phil George Kirikos:e.g. TM owners weighted equally as registrars, equally as registries, equally as registrants, is not the same as "TM Owners equal with registries PLUS registrars PLUS registrants". David McAuley (RySG):then I suggest we specify registries, rars, registrants David McAuley (RySG):maybe "fairly balanced" instead of proportionate - not sure what proportionate means David McAuley (RySG):i have no audio this evening - glitch going on here, sorry Paul Tattersfield:@David I think it was proportionate between costs and benefits David McAuley (RySG):by audio I meant mic David McAuley (RySG):ok thanks Paul susan payne:+1Kristine George Kirikos:@DavidM: might want to use the telephone connection (it's more reliable). David McAuley (RySG):like it Phil but use among instead of between Heather Forrest:rather than name them and perhaps miss someone, can we say 'all of the relevant stakeholders'? George Kirikos:That new alternative language looks fine to me. David McAuley (RySG):sorry Goerge - one with a higher power (at home now) has phone right now and i forgot cell in office David McAuley (RySG):George, that is Paul Tattersfield:Very much agree Susan David McAuley (RySG):Thanks Susan, that makes sense – I was not part of subteam and do not have that history on this and so appreciate the point you make Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes. I would say registries get the least benefit from having to use the TMCH, but is the cost to us proportionate to what the rights holders are getting? David McAuley (RySG):sounds good Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I like reasonably proportionate. Mary Wong:Are we talking about costs and benefits, or advantages and disadvantages? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think they're understood to be the same. Paul Tattersfield:the original question was benefits and costs Kathy Kleiman:+1 Mary Wong:OK, thanks Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I hear a chorus of angels. David McAuley (RySG):i can hear it too - quite nice Mary Wong:Will do, Phil. susan payne:hurrah!!! Kathy Kleiman:Congratulations All! George Kirikos:1/2 the docs = questions David McAuley (RySG):sing seasonal songs? Kathy Kleiman:Happy Holidays to All! Petter Rindforth:We are the best!! George Kirikos:So it's really only 2 pages or so. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I vote that we bail. George Kirikos:Happy holidays, folks. See you in 2017. David McAuley (RySG):agreed Phil, makes sense Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks! Griffin Barnett:Happy to reserve this until next time susan payne:happy. it's 10.50 here the week before xmas Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):could we use doodle poll? Mary Wong:04:00 UTC = 20:00/ PT, 23:00/ET, 04:00 London, 05:00 CET, 15:00 Sydney, 12:00 Beijing Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:the registries Heather Forrest:Thanks very much for keeping the time within decent hours for APAC Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):with RySG .. now it is not a conflict Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):nice ... it is going to be 7.am[7.am]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__7.am&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3P…> instead of 1am :) George Kirikos:04:00 UTC on Thursday? (so that we are still on Wednesday night in Toronto/New York) susan payne:well I understand and support the reason for doing so - but I won't be on a call at 4am. Id love to see some calls that work foir aspac, ME and europe but are less good for US George Kirikos:Or is it 04:00 UTC on Wednesday? (meaning that we are instead on Tuesday in North America???) Heather Forrest:To Susan's point, it does seem that Europe and APAC are normally the time compromisers. That said, most participants are in North America, but maybe this is a chicken-egg problem Mary Wong:@Heather, yes - so one way we are trying to accommodate all of this is to do this as one rotation out of four Heather Forrest:@ Mary, that sounds practical Paul Tattersfield:Question to Staff: Would it be possible to make the document window wider and move the Agenda/Notes window down making it the same height as the chat window? As this would make it easier to read wider/table formatted documents without having to horizontal scroll so often George Kirikos:We should decide the date, too (Wednesday vs. Thursday UTC, i.e Tuesday vs. Wednesday in North America), on the list. Mary Wong:@Paul, I will ask - but I believe it is fixed Paul Tattersfield:thanks Mary George Kirikos:Bye everyone. Great work in 2016....looking forward to 2017. Michelle DeSmyter:January 4th Steve Levy:Have a great holiday and New Years everyone! David McAuley (RySG):Thanks all, best wishes Michelle DeSmyter:17:00 UTC Mary Wong:Happy holidays everyone! Thank you for your time! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Happy Holidays! Heather Forrest:All the best for 2017 everyone Vinzenz Heussler:happy holidays everyone! Paul Tattersfield:Bye Everyone - Happy Holidays and best for a successful 2017 Monica Mitchell:thank you everyone. Laurie Anderson:All the best in 2017 susan payne:bye ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

2 1

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group
by Michelle DeSmyter Dec. 23, 2016

Dec. 23, 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 December 2016 at 22:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/BJ3DAw MP3:http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-21dec16-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[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** 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/BJ3DAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter Adobe Connect chat transcript for 21 December 2016: Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 22:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Philip Corwin:Hi Michelle. I am uncharacteristically early ;-) Michelle DeSmyter:No worries - glad to have you! :) Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome Maxim! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello Michelle, Philip Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):will type instead of using mic - it is 1AM Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for me Michelle DeSmyter:Ouch - sounds good Maxim George Kirikos:Hi folks. Paul Tattersfield:Hi Everyeone Steve Levy:HI all. Happy holidays! Mary Wong:@Phil, we have the redlined version ready. Let us know if you want us to change to it. Mary Wong:We are at the bottom of page 5, for those who have just joined Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):reasonably priced to allow for protection of small local businesses? George Kirikos:Accessible = affordable? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think affordable is too limiting Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:There may be other hinderances at play Heather Forrest:Agree with Kristine that affordable is too narrow a term Jeff Neuman:ease of use? Griffin Barnett:Agree that "access" would potentially include cost, as well as some of the things Phil mentioned such as language, etc. George Kirikos:I think the TMCH is translated into more than 10 languages, see top right of https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademark-2Dclearin… Kurt Pritz:I think guidance for this question comes from the last prepositional clause: "in developing countries." Paul Tattersfield:Can we change ‘trademark owners’ to ‘rights holders’? Because it’s important to provide guidance for marks protected by statue and treaty as well as trademarks. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:The dictionary says accessible means: capable of being used, influenced, seen, understood, appreciated. I think that word is fine. Heather Forrest:usable? susan payne:Agree with Paul's replacement to rights holders Griffin Barnett:Agree we should keep to "accessible" Kurt Pritz:Maybe revese the sentence: Can those in developing countries readily access trademark clearinghouse services (as compared to other regions)? Kathy Kleiman:Why would we change trademark owners to rights holders? Griffin Barnett:No objection to "rights holders" Paul Tattersfield:to include 6ter marks Kathy Mary Wong:On 4.1, note the Sub Team suggestion to share the WG findings on this with the New gTLD SubPro WG. Steve Levy:I like the term "confidential" Petter Rindforth:confidential seems better describe what we mean susan payne:I think we all understand closed = confidential Laurie Anderson:Closed seems to be misleading to the general public Kathy Kleiman:Tx Paul Jeff Neuman:Competition affects cost; bringing the costs down could increase use and effectiveness George Kirikos:5.1 is about costs. One alternative to multiple providers is to have regular competitive tenders. Steve Levy:Although I think TMCH competition is rather impractical, I feel it shoudl be opened up as a matter of principle Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:If that's the case, then I suggest that costs will come out of our investigation as an issue. I'm sure we'll get data on that. And if cost is a problem, then I think competition is a valid solution. Jeff Neuman:I offer no opinion on the question of who should address :) Jeff Neuman:I will only offer the opinion that this group has the relevant expertise to understand the TMCH and the implications of having multiple providers. Looking at the membership of this PDP WG we have a lot of trademark owners and users of the TMCH. So to me it makes sense to be here. Steve Levy:Hasn't Deloitte actually lost money on its TMCH operation? Heather Forrest:Is CCT looking into this issue? susan payne:Hi, I would point out that the WG suggested 2 alternative options for language on this Mary Wong:Several WG members have expressed a preference for Option 2. Jon Nevett:@Steve -- we alone paid them about $1M -- can't believe that they have lost $ susan payne:ICANN paid them too! George Kirikos:Hollywood accounting? :-) susan payne:old hand Griffin Barnett:I would support a further revised version of Cat 5 Q 1: “Taking into consideration cost, reliability, global reach, diversity of services, consistency, and other possible factors, would it be desirable and practical to have more than one provider for the TMCH services? Why or why not?” Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Proposal 2 focuses on the question: Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Proposal 2 focuses on the question: "what is the problem" rather than suggesting a list.... susan payne:I prefer 2 Steve Levy:I also voted for Proposal 2 susan payne:aha, for reasons Kristine is giving Heather Forrest:I prefer the open-endedness of 2 Kurt Pritz:I prefer 1 as it delineates issues Petter Rindforth:I support Griffins suggested version Griffin Barnett:Proposal 2 wording seems to presuppose that there are concerns with a single provider of TMCH services, that's my only concern about that formulation Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Griffin, people from the community came up with this question, so it's safe to assume SOMEONE thinks there's a problem. :) Vinzenz Heussler:Griffin Barnett combined 1 and 2 rather clever Heather Forrest:Mary has her hand up Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm not following that - visual learner. Can someone capture Phil's most recent suggestion in writing? Kathy Kleiman:I like Phil's compromise wording Kurt Pritz:@ Mary - we are perilously close to agreement - cmonsensus Vinzenz Heussler:it's in the agenda/notes on the right side, isn't it Kurt Pritz:@ Mary "consensus" Griffin Barnett:Fine with the latest compromise wording David McAuley (RySG):Sometimes hard for notes on right to keep up with speedy speakers Paul Tattersfield:Does the current single operator nature of the TMCH optimize operational considerations as cost, reliability, global reach, and service diversity and consistency, or should significant changes be considered? Griffin Barnett:@Kurt -- I thought "cmonsensus" was intentionally clever Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Proposal 4 was Phil's right? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I support that. Mary Wong:Proposal 3 was from Griffin, Proposal 4 is Phil's suggestion Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:thanks Mary, Santa better be kind to you... Laurie Anderson:Supporting Proposal 4 Lillian Fosteris:I like Proposal 4 Griffin Barnett:Agree you can remove "Why or why not" from my proposal -- it is implied by the initial question Mary Wong:I count 14 in favor of Proposal 4 Heather Forrest:Are we not taking this out to other members of the WG? I misunderstood perhaps - thought the straw poll was going out to the list? Mary Wong:@Heather, we will send out a note highlighting that this is the proposed final set of TMCH Charter questions Vinzenz Heussler:costs proportionate to benefits? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):have we seen a single review of TMCH activities from financial perspective? David McAuley (RySG):it sounds like proportionate among those three David McAuley (RySG):icann, rights holders, and community George Kirikos:Should list more stakeholders, e.g. registries, registrars, registrants, etc. Chris Thomas:proportional? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 George Lillian Fosteris:+1 Georege Lillian Fosteris:George* Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 George susan payne:Agree George but I think that;'s intended by community David McAuley (RySG):I agree then with the idea of listing registries, registrars, registrant Heather Forrest:Should we split the question into multiple parts to encourage a reply on each stakeholder? Paul Tattersfield:Support George Kirikos:If they're part of "community", then they might get diluted by 1/3rd. David McAuley (RySG):registrants are part of conmunity as well Mary Wong:We got it, Phil George Kirikos:e.g. TM owners weighted equally as registrars, equally as registries, equally as registrants, is not the same as "TM Owners equal with registries PLUS registrars PLUS registrants". David McAuley (RySG):then I suggest we specify registries, rars, registrants David McAuley (RySG):maybe "fairly balanced" instead of proportionate - not sure what proportionate means David McAuley (RySG):i have no audio this evening - glitch going on here, sorry Paul Tattersfield:@David I think it was proportionate between costs and benefits David McAuley (RySG):by audio I meant mic David McAuley (RySG):ok thanks Paul susan payne:+1Kristine George Kirikos:@DavidM: might want to use the telephone connection (it's more reliable). David McAuley (RySG):like it Phil but use among instead of between Heather Forrest:rather than name them and perhaps miss someone, can we say 'all of the relevant stakeholders'? George Kirikos:That new alternative language looks fine to me. David McAuley (RySG):sorry Goerge - one with a higher power (at home now) has phone right now and i forgot cell in office David McAuley (RySG):George, that is Paul Tattersfield:Very much agree Susan David McAuley (RySG):Thanks Susan, that makes sense – I was not part of subteam and do not have that history on this and so appreciate the point you make Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes. I would say registries get the least benefit from having to use the TMCH, but is the cost to us proportionate to what the rights holders are getting? David McAuley (RySG):sounds good Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I like reasonably proportionate. Mary Wong:Are we talking about costs and benefits, or advantages and disadvantages? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think they're understood to be the same. Paul Tattersfield:the original question was benefits and costs Kathy Kleiman:+1 Mary Wong:OK, thanks Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I hear a chorus of angels. David McAuley (RySG):i can hear it too - quite nice Mary Wong:Will do, Phil. susan payne:hurrah!!! Kathy Kleiman:Congratulations All! George Kirikos:1/2 the docs = questions David McAuley (RySG):sing seasonal songs? Kathy Kleiman:Happy Holidays to All! Petter Rindforth:We are the best!! George Kirikos:So it's really only 2 pages or so. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I vote that we bail. George Kirikos:Happy holidays, folks. See you in 2017. David McAuley (RySG):agreed Phil, makes sense Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks! Griffin Barnett:Happy to reserve this until next time susan payne:happy. it's 10.50 here the week before xmas Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):could we use doodle poll? Mary Wong:04:00 UTC = 20:00/ PT, 23:00/ET, 04:00 London, 05:00 CET, 15:00 Sydney, 12:00 Beijing Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:the registries Heather Forrest:Thanks very much for keeping the time within decent hours for APAC Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):with RySG .. now it is not a conflict Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):nice ... it is going to be 7.am instead of 1am :) George Kirikos:04:00 UTC on Thursday? (so that we are still on Wednesday night in Toronto/New York) susan payne:well I understand and support the reason for doing so - but I won't be on a call at 4am. Id love to see some calls that work foir aspac, ME and europe but are less good for US George Kirikos:Or is it 04:00 UTC on Wednesday? (meaning that we are instead on Tuesday in North America???) Heather Forrest:To Susan's point, it does seem that Europe and APAC are normally the time compromisers. That said, most participants are in North America, but maybe this is a chicken-egg problem Mary Wong:@Heather, yes - so one way we are trying to accommodate all of this is to do this as one rotation out of four Heather Forrest:@ Mary, that sounds practical Paul Tattersfield:Question to Staff: Would it be possible to make the document window wider and move the Agenda/Notes window down making it the same height as the chat window? As this would make it easier to read wider/table formatted documents without having to horizontal scroll so often George Kirikos:We should decide the date, too (Wednesday vs. Thursday UTC, i.e Tuesday vs. Wednesday in North America), on the list. Mary Wong:@Paul, I will ask - but I believe it is fixed Paul Tattersfield:thanks Mary George Kirikos:Bye everyone. Great work in 2016....looking forward to 2017. Michelle DeSmyter:January 4th Steve Levy:Have a great holiday and New Years everyone! David McAuley (RySG):Thanks all, best wishes Michelle DeSmyter:17:00 UTC Mary Wong:Happy holidays everyone! Thank you for your time! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Happy Holidays! Heather Forrest:All the best for 2017 everyone Vinzenz Heussler:happy holidays everyone! Paul Tattersfield:Bye Everyone - Happy Holidays and best for a successful 2017 Monica Mitchell:thank you everyone. Laurie Anderson:All the best in 2017 susan payne:bye

8 9

FOR REVIEW: Updated TMCH Charter questions
by Mary Wong Dec. 22, 2016

Dec. 22, 2016

Dear all, Please find attached an updated table of the proposed list of TMCH Charter questions, edited following the Working Group call of 21 December. For ease of reference, in addition to the redlined table (which shows changes made on the last two calls), a second document showing the full list of final questions, numbered chronologically, is also attached. As agreed on the call, and for the attention of those Working Group members who were not able to be on the call - please review the proposed final list of questions, and send any comments you may have to this mailing list, no later than 31 December 2016. 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: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 18:08 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 21 December Dear all, The proposed agenda for the Working Group call on Wednesday 21 December at 2200 UTC, which will be the final call for this calendar year, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete review of proposed TMCH Charter questions (see document circulated on 15 December) 3. [if time permits] review registry responses received to date on questions sent by TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team (see document circulated on 13 December) 4. Co-chairs’ recommendation for new rotating meeting time 5. 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: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 13:35 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated table of TMCH Charter Questions Dear all, Please find attached an updated version of the TMCH Charter Questions table, which staff has prepared based on the Working Group discussion during the Working Group call this past Wednesday. In addition to the updates made to Category 1 Question 4 (on design marks), Category 2 Questions 1 and 2 (rejection of TMCH submissions and handling of cancelled trademarks), and Category 3 Questions 1, 2 and 3 (balancing of rights, the generic/scope issue, and TM+50), we have retained in this version the changes made last week to Category 1 Questions 1-3 so that you can review all the agreed changes to date. Please note that a few Working Group member comments remain to be either considered or responses finalized – we have retained these in the document as well for your easy reference. We have yet to discuss and finalize the following remaining questions: Category 3 Question 4, and the questions in Category 4 and Category 5. 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: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 01:31 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on 14 December Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, scheduled for 14 December at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continue discussion of proposed TMCH Charter questions (see attached document) 3. [If time permits] Review responses received to TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team list of questions sent to New gTLD Registry Operators (see attached) 4. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2: the attached document contains updates made by staff based on the Working Group’s discussions on the call last week. It also includes the co-chairs’ proposed compromise language on the “generic terms” issue (Category 3, Question 2) that was circulated to the mailing list earlier today, and a few additional suggestions made to the mailing list since the last call and as of today (13 December). For Agenda Item #3: the attached document is a compilation of responses received so far from three registry operators (Public Interest Registry, Donuts, and Afnic) to the list of questions for New gTLD Registry Operators that was prepared by the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team. Staff will continue to update the document as and when we receive any additional responses from other registries. 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

1 0

Meeting rotation times for the RPM Review Working Group
by Mary Wong Dec. 22, 2016

Dec. 22, 2016

Dear Jonathan (Agmon), Jonathan (Matkowsky) and everyone, I hope you will be pleased to know that the Working Group co-chairs have been discussing this topic and reviewing the usefulness of our current meeting rotation times. Following discussion with those Working Group members who were able to attend the call yesterday, the Working Group co-chairs would like to propose a change for our meeting times, as follows: Week 1: 1700 UTC (no change) Week 2: 1800 UTC (no change) Week 3: 1700 UTC (no change) Week 4: 0400 UTC (change from 2200 UTC) We invite all Working Group members to provide feedback on this proposed change. Please note that, given the geographic spread of our membership, the fact that a large majority are based in North America followed by Europe, there is unfortunately no single time that will work for everyone. The idea to hold one out of four meetings in a much more APAC-friendly time zone seems to be an equitable solution, given the circumstances. The co-chairs intend to review the rotation again around the time of the ICANN58 meeting in March 2017. Assuming there are no major objections, staff will go ahead and implement the proposed change with effect from January2017. 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: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky(a)riskiq.net> Date: Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 09:56 To: Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon(a)ip-law.legal> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group I had the same experience last night when I tried to stay up for the call and intended to make it, but fell asleep because it was in middle of the night. So I would like to be added to that column too please. Thank you! [http://safe.riskiq.com/rs/455-NHF-420/images/RiskIQ_Logo_Blue_Vertical.png]…]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__riskiq.com_&d=DgMFaQ&c=…> jonathan matkowsky, vp – ip & brand security usa:: 1.347.467.1193 | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766 emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831 company reg. no. 514805332[havarot.justice.gov.il]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__havarot.justice.gov.il_…> 11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel [http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448744755-png/Email_Signature/twit…]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_riskiq&d=D…>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448719740-png/Email_Signature/face…]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_pages…>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448744760-png/Email_Signature/link…]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compa…>[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/250381/file-1448719735-png/Email_Signature/goog…]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__plus.google.com_-2BRis…> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon(a)ip-law.legal<mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal>> wrote: Dear Michelle and Marry, First I apologize for cc’ing the entire list to this email but I think it is only fair that this would not be a private request. The attendance list is a bit of a sore spot for me since I joined this WG. As I noted before I do want to attend the calls but all the calls are outside the time zone for the Far East. They are always at 1am or 6am for Singapore/Beijing time. For Australia I think it is even worse. It is therefore unreasonable for those of us in this part of the world to join. It is also a bit odd for us to continuously apologize for not making the calls. After all there is nothing to apologize for. Can I therefore please ask you to add another category to the attendance. I suggest we call it “out of time zone” or something to this effect. You can place my name there and perhaps others from this part of the planet who so request. I hope this will better reflect the fact that I (and perhaps others) would like to join the calls but we cannot. I appreciate your kind consideration of this request. Thanks, [cid:image001.png@01D25C48.35131750] Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森) Advocate, Director Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York) jonathan.agmon(a)ip-law.legal<mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal> www.ip-law.legal[ip-law.legal]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ip-2Dlaw.legal&d=Dg…> T SG +65 6532 2577<tel:+65%206532%202577> T US +1 212 999 6180 T IL +972 9 950 7000 F IL +972 9 950 5500 Soroker Agmon Nordman Pte Ltd. 133 New Bridge Road, #13-02, 059413 SINGAPORE 8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425 4672408 Herzliya, ISRAEL This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 11:30 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group 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 December 2016 at 22:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/BJ3DAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> MP3:http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-21dec16-en.mp3[audio.icann.…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** 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/BJ3DAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter Adobe Connect chat transcript for 21 December 2016: Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 22:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Philip Corwin:Hi Michelle. I am uncharacteristically early ;-) Michelle DeSmyter:No worries - glad to have you! :) Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome Maxim! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello Michelle, Philip Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):will type instead of using mic - it is 1AM Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for me Michelle DeSmyter:Ouch - sounds good Maxim George Kirikos:Hi folks. Paul Tattersfield:Hi Everyeone Steve Levy:HI all. Happy holidays! Mary Wong:@Phil, we have the redlined version ready. Let us know if you want us to change to it. Mary Wong:We are at the bottom of page 5, for those who have just joined Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):reasonably priced to allow for protection of small local businesses? George Kirikos:Accessible = affordable? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think affordable is too limiting Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:There may be other hinderances at play Heather Forrest:Agree with Kristine that affordable is too narrow a term Jeff Neuman:ease of use? Griffin Barnett:Agree that "access" would potentially include cost, as well as some of the things Phil mentioned such as language, etc. George Kirikos:I think the TMCH is translated into more than 10 languages, see top right of https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademark-2Dclearin… Kurt Pritz:I think guidance for this question comes from the last prepositional clause: "in developing countries." Paul Tattersfield:Can we change ‘trademark owners’ to ‘rights holders’? Because it’s important to provide guidance for marks protected by statue and treaty as well as trademarks. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:The dictionary says accessible means: capable of being used, influenced, seen, understood, appreciated. I think that word is fine. Heather Forrest:usable? susan payne:Agree with Paul's replacement to rights holders Griffin Barnett:Agree we should keep to "accessible" Kurt Pritz:Maybe revese the sentence: Can those in developing countries readily access trademark clearinghouse services (as compared to other regions)? Kathy Kleiman:Why would we change trademark owners to rights holders? Griffin Barnett:No objection to "rights holders" Paul Tattersfield:to include 6ter marks Kathy Mary Wong:On 4.1, note the Sub Team suggestion to share the WG findings on this with the New gTLD SubPro WG. Steve Levy:I like the term "confidential" Petter Rindforth:confidential seems better describe what we mean susan payne:I think we all understand closed = confidential Laurie Anderson:Closed seems to be misleading to the general public Kathy Kleiman:Tx Paul Jeff Neuman:Competition affects cost; bringing the costs down could increase use and effectiveness George Kirikos: 5.1 is about costs. One alternative to multiple providers is to have regular competitive tenders. Steve Levy:Although I think TMCH competition is rather impractical, I feel it shoudl be opened up as a matter of principle Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:If that's the case, then I suggest that costs will come out of our investigation as an issue. I'm sure we'll get data on that. And if cost is a problem, then I think competition is a valid solution. Jeff Neuman:I offer no opinion on the question of who should address :) Jeff Neuman:I will only offer the opinion that this group has the relevant expertise to understand the TMCH and the implications of having multiple providers. Looking at the membership of this PDP WG we have a lot of trademark owners and users of the TMCH. So to me it makes sense to be here. Steve Levy:Hasn't Deloitte actually lost money on its TMCH operation? Heather Forrest:Is CCT looking into this issue? susan payne:Hi, I would point out that the WG suggested 2 alternative options for language on this Mary Wong:Several WG members have expressed a preference for Option 2. Jon Nevett:@Steve -- we alone paid them about $1M -- can't believe that they have lost $ susan payne:ICANN paid them too! George Kirikos:Hollywood accounting? :-) susan payne:old hand Griffin Barnett:I would support a further revised version of Cat 5 Q 1: “Taking into consideration cost, reliability, global reach, diversity of services, consistency, and other possible factors, would it be desirable and practical to have more than one provider for the TMCH services? Why or why not?” Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Proposal 2 focuses on the question: Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Proposal 2 focuses on the question: "what is the problem" rather than suggesting a list.... susan payne:I prefer 2 Steve Levy:I also voted for Proposal 2 susan payne:aha, for reasons Kristine is giving Heather Forrest:I prefer the open-endedness of 2 Kurt Pritz:I prefer 1 as it delineates issues Petter Rindforth:I support Griffins suggested version Griffin Barnett:Proposal 2 wording seems to presuppose that there are concerns with a single provider of TMCH services, that's my only concern about that formulation Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Griffin, people from the community came up with this question, so it's safe to assume SOMEONE thinks there's a problem. :) Vinzenz Heussler:Griffin Barnett combined 1 and 2 rather clever Heather Forrest:Mary has her hand up Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm not following that - visual learner. Can someone capture Phil's most recent suggestion in writing? Kathy Kleiman:I like Phil's compromise wording Kurt Pritz:@ Mary - we are perilously close to agreement - cmonsensus Vinzenz Heussler:it's in the agenda/notes on the right side, isn't it Kurt Pritz:@ Mary "consensus" Griffin Barnett:Fine with the latest compromise wording David McAuley (RySG):Sometimes hard for notes on right to keep up with speedy speakers Paul Tattersfield:Does the current single operator nature of the TMCH optimize operational considerations as cost, reliability, global reach, and service diversity and consistency, or should significant changes be considered? Griffin Barnett:@Kurt -- I thought "cmonsensus" was intentionally clever Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Proposal 4 was Phil's right? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I support that. Mary Wong:Proposal 3 was from Griffin, Proposal 4 is Phil's suggestion Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:thanks Mary, Santa better be kind to you... Laurie Anderson:Supporting Proposal 4 Lillian Fosteris:I like Proposal 4 Griffin Barnett:Agree you can remove "Why or why not" from my proposal -- it is implied by the initial question Mary Wong:I count 14 in favor of Proposal 4 Heather Forrest:Are we not taking this out to other members of the WG? I misunderstood perhaps - thought the straw poll was going out to the list? Mary Wong:@Heather, we will send out a note highlighting that this is the proposed final set of TMCH Charter questions Vinzenz Heussler:costs proportionate to benefits? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):have we seen a single review of TMCH activities from financial perspective? David McAuley (RySG):it sounds like proportionate among those three David McAuley (RySG):icann, rights holders, and community George Kirikos:Should list more stakeholders, e.g. registries, registrars, registrants, etc. Chris Thomas:proportional? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 George Lillian Fosteris:+1 Georege Lillian Fosteris:George* Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 George susan payne:Agree George but I think that;'s intended by community David McAuley (RySG):I agree then with the idea of listing registries, registrars, registrant Heather Forrest:Should we split the question into multiple parts to encourage a reply on each stakeholder? Paul Tattersfield:Support George Kirikos:If they're part of "community", then they might get diluted by 1/3rd. David McAuley (RySG):registrants are part of conmunity as well Mary Wong:We got it, Phil George Kirikos:e.g. TM owners weighted equally as registrars, equally as registries, equally as registrants, is not the same as "TM Owners equal with registries PLUS registrars PLUS registrants". David McAuley (RySG):then I suggest we specify registries, rars, registrants David McAuley (RySG):maybe "fairly balanced" instead of proportionate - not sure what proportionate means David McAuley (RySG):i have no audio this evening - glitch going on here, sorry Paul Tattersfield:@David I think it was proportionate between costs and benefits David McAuley (RySG):by audio I meant mic David McAuley (RySG):ok thanks Paul susan payne:+1Kristine George Kirikos:@DavidM: might want to use the telephone connection (it's more reliable). David McAuley (RySG):like it Phil but use among instead of between Heather Forrest:rather than name them and perhaps miss someone, can we say 'all of the relevant stakeholders'? George Kirikos:That new alternative language looks fine to me. David McAuley (RySG):sorry Goerge - one with a higher power (at home now) has phone right now and i forgot cell in office David McAuley (RySG):George, that is Paul Tattersfield:Very much agree Susan David McAuley (RySG):Thanks Susan, that makes sense – I was not part of subteam and do not have that history on this and so appreciate the point you make Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes. I would say registries get the least benefit from having to use the TMCH, but is the cost to us proportionate to what the rights holders are getting? David McAuley (RySG):sounds good Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I like reasonably proportionate. Mary Wong:Are we talking about costs and benefits, or advantages and disadvantages? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think they're understood to be the same. Paul Tattersfield:the original question was benefits and costs Kathy Kleiman:+1 Mary Wong:OK, thanks Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I hear a chorus of angels. David McAuley (RySG):i can hear it too - quite nice Mary Wong:Will do, Phil. susan payne:hurrah!!! Kathy Kleiman:Congratulations All! George Kirikos:1/2 the docs = questions David McAuley (RySG):sing seasonal songs? Kathy Kleiman:Happy Holidays to All! Petter Rindforth:We are the best!! George Kirikos:So it's really only 2 pages or so. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I vote that we bail. George Kirikos:Happy holidays, folks. See you in 2017. David McAuley (RySG):agreed Phil, makes sense Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks! Griffin Barnett:Happy to reserve this until next time susan payne:happy. it's 10.50 here the week before xmas Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):could we use doodle poll? Mary Wong:04:00 UTC = 20:00/ PT, 23:00/ET, 04:00 London, 05:00 CET, 15:00 Sydney, 12:00 Beijing Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:the registries Heather Forrest:Thanks very much for keeping the time within decent hours for APAC Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):with RySG .. now it is not a conflict Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):nice ... it is going to be 7.am[7.am]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__7.am&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3P…> instead of 1am :) George Kirikos:04:00 UTC on Thursday? (so that we are still on Wednesday night in Toronto/New York) susan payne:well I understand and support the reason for doing so - but I won't be on a call at 4am. Id love to see some calls that work foir aspac, ME and europe but are less good for US George Kirikos:Or is it 04:00 UTC on Wednesday? (meaning that we are instead on Tuesday in North America???) Heather Forrest:To Susan's point, it does seem that Europe and APAC are normally the time compromisers. That said, most participants are in North America, but maybe this is a chicken-egg problem Mary Wong:@Heather, yes - so one way we are trying to accommodate all of this is to do this as one rotation out of four Heather Forrest:@ Mary, that sounds practical Paul Tattersfield:Question to Staff: Would it be possible to make the document window wider and move the Agenda/Notes window down making it the same height as the chat window? As this would make it easier to read wider/table formatted documents without having to horizontal scroll so often George Kirikos:We should decide the date, too (Wednesday vs. Thursday UTC, i.e Tuesday vs. Wednesday in North America), on the list. Mary Wong:@Paul, I will ask - but I believe it is fixed Paul Tattersfield:thanks Mary George Kirikos:Bye everyone. Great work in 2016....looking forward to 2017. Michelle DeSmyter:January 4th Steve Levy:Have a great holiday and New Years everyone! David McAuley (RySG):Thanks all, best wishes Michelle DeSmyter:17:00 UTC Mary Wong:Happy holidays everyone! Thank you for your time! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Happy Holidays! Heather Forrest:All the best for 2017 everyone Vinzenz Heussler:happy holidays everyone! Paul Tattersfield:Bye Everyone - Happy Holidays and best for a successful 2017 Monica Mitchell:thank you everyone. Laurie Anderson:All the best in 2017 susan payne:bye ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 21 December
by Mary Wong Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

Dear all, The proposed agenda for the Working Group call on Wednesday 21 December at 2200 UTC, which will be the final call for this calendar year, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete review of proposed TMCH Charter questions (see document circulated on 15 December) 3. [if time permits] review registry responses received to date on questions sent by TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team (see document circulated on 13 December) 4. Co-chairs’ recommendation for new rotating meeting time 5. 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: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 13:35 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated table of TMCH Charter Questions Dear all, Please find attached an updated version of the TMCH Charter Questions table, which staff has prepared based on the Working Group discussion during the Working Group call this past Wednesday. In addition to the updates made to Category 1 Question 4 (on design marks), Category 2 Questions 1 and 2 (rejection of TMCH submissions and handling of cancelled trademarks), and Category 3 Questions 1, 2 and 3 (balancing of rights, the generic/scope issue, and TM+50), we have retained in this version the changes made last week to Category 1 Questions 1-3 so that you can review all the agreed changes to date. Please note that a few Working Group member comments remain to be either considered or responses finalized – we have retained these in the document as well for your easy reference. We have yet to discuss and finalize the following remaining questions: Category 3 Question 4, and the questions in Category 4 and Category 5. 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: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 01:31 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on 14 December Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, scheduled for 14 December at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect/phone bridge only) and updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continue discussion of proposed TMCH Charter questions (see attached document) 3. [If time permits] Review responses received to TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team list of questions sent to New gTLD Registry Operators (see attached) 4. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2: the attached document contains updates made by staff based on the Working Group’s discussions on the call last week. It also includes the co-chairs’ proposed compromise language on the “generic terms” issue (Category 3, Question 2) that was circulated to the mailing list earlier today, and a few additional suggestions made to the mailing list since the last call and as of today (13 December). For Agenda Item #3: the attached document is a compilation of responses received so far from three registry operators (Public Interest Registry, Donuts, and Afnic) to the list of questions for New gTLD Registry Operators that was prepared by the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team. Staff will continue to update the document as and when we receive any additional responses from other registries. 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

2 1

FW: Updated TMCH Charter Questions tabulated categories document - 2 December 2016
by David Tait Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

Dear All At Kathy Kleiman’s request, and to facilitate discussion of this, issue staff is circulating the email below to the full Working Group. Kind regards, David From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> Date: Sunday, 4 December 2016 at 19:40 To: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil(a)markmonitor.com>, David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com>, Edward Morris <edward.morris(a)alumni.usc.edu>, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, "Sarahliannec(a)gmail.com" <Sarahliannec(a)gmail.com>, Paul Keating <paul(a)law.es>, "kurt(a)kjpritz.com" <kurt(a)kjpritz.com>, "gpmgroup(a)gmail.com" <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com>, "Vaibhav Aggarwal, Group CEO & Founder" <va(a)bladebrains.com>, Sarah Clayton <Sarahliannec(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: Updated TMCH Charter Questions tabulated categories document - 2 December 2016 I don't think anyone understood why it was legally inappropriate, Kiran. You referenced a discussion that took place a long time ago, and after which there was considerable discussion and disagreement online. One major reference for the definition of "generic words" used in this question is the International Trademark Association. It's Fact Sheet on Trademark Strength references generic words and instructs: => "Generic Words: A generic word or phrase is so inherently descriptive of a product or service or an entire class of products or services as to be incapable of ever functioning as a trademark. Generic words can be thought of as the common name of the product or service in question—for example, “clock” is a generic word for timepieces. Such words can never be appropriated by a single party as trademarks for the products or services they signify, since the public perceives and uses them solely as common nouns or terms. Generic words or phrases are not registrable or protectable in relation to the products or services they signify." http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactS… So the question of whether, through the TMCH Database or its associated Rights Protection Mechanisms, is granting protection to a trademark, which also happens to be a generic word (see INTA above), beyond its categories of goods and services is a fair one. Besides, there were numerous charter questions on this issue. We can't simply delete it. But if you would like to offer a clearer way to phrase the question, please do. Best, Kathy On 12/4/2016 12:54 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: Hi David, I wasn't able to attend the call on Friday. Can you please explain why Question 10 was marked green for accepted with legally inappropriate terminology? Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Dec 4, 2016, at 9:26 AM, David Tait <david.tait(a)icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All Following our call on Friday I am pleased to enclose the notes and outcomes from the meeting. Alongside these notes I attach an appropriately updated version of the TMCH Charter Questions document. The notes and outcomes are as follows: * Q10 - Should be marked green for accepted. * Q13 and 14- Proposal to merge Q13+14: "How accessible is the TMCH database and RPM Rights Protection Actions and Defenses to individuals, orgs, trademark owners and trademark agents in developing countries?" Proposal to keep question in but report findings to SubPro WG. * Q15- (now question 14 in latest draft) Revision agreed to "What concerns are being raised about the TMCH being closed, what are the reasons for having/keeping the TMCH Database private, and should the TMCH Database remain closed or become open?" * Q16- (now question 15 in latest draft) Proposal 1 "Does the present structuring of the TMCH optimize such operational considerations as cost, reliability, global reach, and service diversity and consistency, or should significant changes be considered?" Proposal 2 "What are the concerns with the TMCH Database being provided by a single Provider - and how might those concerns be addressed?" Both proposals to go to the Working Group. Should there be regional service desks if not regional providers? * Q17- (now question 16 in latest draft) Agreed revision: "Are the costs and benefits of the TMCH, for rights holders, for ICANN, for the community, proportionate?" I would also note that further to Mary Wong's email of 1 December 2016 we will now proceed to circulate this updated document to the full Working Group in advance of the next Working Group call on Wednesday. Additionally, we will note that the Sub-Team is expressly seeking the input of the full Working Group on the alternative formulations of Question 16 (this being the only outstanding question not agreed by the Sub-Team). Kind regards, David David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland, non-practicing) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait(a)icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org[icann.org]<http://www.icann.org>[icann.org] <Tabulated Categories - TMCH Questions 2 Dec 2016.docx>

25 72