To move this PDP forward a decision if GIs should be part of the RPMs should be taken substantively. Trying to deal with this issue through Question #8 is counterproductive. Claudio will present his proposal in the next call and I support it. The “Agmon proposal” was put forward and discussed and from my view there is no current broad agreement with one or other proposal put forward thus far. As I stated before, if the TMCH has been correct or incorrect when it allowed GIs to be recorded therein would be irrelevant if the WG would decide that GIs should be dealt by RPMs. I also think that issuing TMCH compliance statements is outside the charter of this WG, and I have not seen any direct support for such statements in the WG charter. Thanks, [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@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: icannlists [mailto:icannlists@winston.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 3:30 PM To: Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>; claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Cc: J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Deadline for proposals and agenda for the next Working Group call I do not support Jonathan’s proposal. This PDP needs to move forward, not backward. We have already discussed Question #8 for weeks and we have waited for weeks for the Agmon proposal to surface on a call where it can be discussed. It has not and there appears to be a request for several more weeks. A PDP can’t function like this where a dissenting position is supposed to arrive at any time, doesn’t, asks for postponement after postponement, and eventually asks the that the WG undo its work and push that already done work out for several month only to redo it then. Postponing reaching an initial conclusion for months, and reopening it up again, will cost us weeks, if not months. While I am all for allowing all voices to be heard, those voices do need to speak with some measure of alacrity that is consistent with the Workplan. I think it is time to reach an initial conclusion on Q8, and let’s move on. We have lots more work to do. Best, Paul From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Agmon Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 12:59 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> Cc: J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Deadline for proposals and agenda for the next Working Group call In view of Claudio's proposal, I would like to support putting the TMCH question #8 on hold until the GI issue is considred substantively within the scope of the RPMs. I would also note that I believe my proposal was presented some time ago in a call made on a Far East convenient time, but I may be wrong there. If it hasn't, since I will be flying on the 17th (to INTA) I would like to set another time for presenting my proposal. I would appreciate if we can do so after INTA around the 26 at a Far East convenient time. Thanks, [cid:image001.png@01D2CE6E.84C78B80] Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森) Advocate, Director Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York) jonathan.agmon@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: ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Sent: 15 May 2017 21:05 To: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Deadline for proposals and agenda for the next Working Group call Mary, all, Thank you for the direction provided in your recent note. With regards to GIs, our Charter, https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-15mar16-en.pdf, states the following: "Examine the protection of country names and geographical indications, and generally of indications of source, within the RPMs." In my view, this signifies that the issue of GIs is properly within scope, but if anyone feels differently I would encourage substantive feedback so we can resolve any alternative points of views on this subject. On the basis of this charter objective, I suggest we: 1) add the consideration of GIs to the policy review of the Sunrise and Claims services; and 2) withhold final consideration of the current TMCH proposals relating to GIs, until we conclude the policy review of the new gTLD RPMs (as described in the Charter). The Clearinghouse is a database designed to administratively support the RPMs across new gTLDs. When we conduct the policy review of the RPMs, we can assess the nature of the protections and assess whether any changes are needed to protect the rights of others, consistent with the GNSO policy recommendations on new gTLDs. The specific design of the Clearinghouse database, and the associated IP records contained therein, should be consistent with the outcome of that policy assessment. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Best regards, Claudio On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Apologies, that deadline for submission of proposals should (of course) be Wednesday 24 MAY 2017 (and not February!!!) Sorry for any confusion, Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Friday, May 12, 2017 at 20:13 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Deadline for proposals and agenda for the next Working Group call Dear all, On behalf of the Working Group co-chairs, this note is being sent to inform you that the co-chairs would like to bring the discussions on the various open questions relating to the TMCH to a close within a reasonable period of time. This will allow us to move on to the next part of Phase One of our work, which will be to review the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs. As such, please note that the co-chairs are asking that any proposal you may wish to submit on the TMCH review – including any refinement of a previously-submitted proposal and especially relating to the ongoing discussion on design marks, GIs and expanding the “identical match” test – should be sent to this mailing list no later than Wednesday 24 February 2017. For the next Working Group meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 17 May, here is the proposed agenda: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Progress reports from the chairs of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams 3. Continue discussion of open TMCH questions: • Geographical Indications (with the opportunity for Jonathan Agmon or his designee to present his proposal, being the only proposal that has not yet been presented to the group at a meeting) • Expanding the “identical match” test • [if time permits Design marks 4. Next steps/next meeting Please note also that there will not be a Working Group meeting the following Wednesday, 24 May, since many Working Group members will be at the International Trademark Association Annual Meeting. Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
