Not once has anyone from "your side"given a factual and legal reason. As to this prior discussion please let me know when it took place. Sent from my iPad
On 12 Apr 2017, at 00:33, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote:
We have been through this all before. You’ve made these points and the advocates for the confidentiality of the data have clearly argued why your position is faulty. I agree to disagree with your position. If this information were so easily obtained (it is all publicly available), you’d have it.
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 4/11/17, 2:57 PM, "Paul Keating" <paul@law.es> wrote:
It says at most which domains it wants pre-emptiness and notice rights over.
Hardly a confidential business secret. The information is a public record. And, After all the Information is instantly public the minute one pre-emptive sunrise registration is undertaken. The notice right is completely a non secret.
And hardly sufficient to use to hide bad actors.
Sent from my iPad
On 11 Apr 2017, at 23:18, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
There is a big difference from a database that contains all a company’s registered marks and one that contains a culling for only those it deems most valuable for protection in the DNS. The former is clearly open for the public, the later is not.
J. Scott
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 4/11/17, 2:03 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of jmalcolm@eff.org> wrote:
On 11/4/17 9:43 am, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg wrote:
George:
We have all followed this string. We understand that you and a few others believe there need to be wholesale changes to the Sunrise mechanism and the TMCH database (or at least the confidentiality of that data).
1. Do you have a suggestion for how to improve the Sunrise mechanism? 2. I see very little support for violating the confidentiality provisions of the TMCH contract.
FWIW I am also all for bringing the transparency of the TMCH database into line with those of national trademark registries so that its secrecy does not facilitate the kinds of abuses that George has uncovered. I have been an observer until now but I've just upgraded to member and plan to join the call tomorrow.
-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feff.org&dat... jmalcolm@eff.org
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org... PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...