Dear all, It may be helpful to be clear in using the word “Policy” (capitalized), when we are referring to Consensus Policy that is binding on ICANN’s Contracted Parties (gTLD registries and registrars), and when we are not. A Consensus Policy is one that is created through the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) and adopted by the ICANN Board following the requisite steps in the ICANN Bylaws. For the purposes of our PDP, the Consensus Policy that is the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is what we will be reviewing in Phase 2. The 2007 GNSO PDP on the Introduction of New gTLDs contained a number of Principles, Recommendations and Implementation Guidelines, but did not contain specific Consensus Policy recommendations on the nature or scope of RPMs for the New gTLD Program. The development, during implementation of the PDP recommendations through community consultations on the various iterations of the Applicant Guidebook, of the RPMs we are currently reviewing, is briefly described in the letter from the October 2009 ICANN Board to the GNSO Council that resulted in the formation of the Special Trademark Issues Review Team (STI): https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-e.... Here is the gist: o The original GNSO policy recommendation from 2007 was that “strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law” (Recommendation 3: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm). o In that 2007 PDP, the GNSO had formed several Working Groups, including the Protecting the Rights of Others Working Group (PRO-WG). The PRO-WG was not able to reach consensus on a list of rights protection mechanisms that could be universally applicable to all new gTLDs, in part, because of the expected diversity in new types of registry businesses, but there was consensus on six principles that included agreement on the fact “that there is no universal RPM” and that “Legal Rights [which the group defined] to be protected in a RPM must be capable of being authenticated” (PRO-WG Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/drafts/pro-wg-final-report-26jun07.pdf). o In March 2009, the ICANN Board acknowledged that implementation issues concerning the overarching issue of trademark protection in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs needed additional community input and analysis and resolved to form the Implementation Recommendations Team (IRT) (Board resolution: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2009-03-06-en#07). o In October 2009, the ICANN Board requested the GNSO’s view as to whether the RPMs proposed at the time for the New gTLD Program were consistent with the GNSO’s 2007 policy recommendations, and are appropriate and effective in achieving the objectives (Board letter, referenced above: https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-e...). o As noted previously, the STI was formed by the GNSO as a result of this Board request (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2010/sti for additional background, documents and motions). The STI’s recommendations for an alternative proposal to that suggested by ICANN staff in the then-current version of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) – Version 3 - were adopted by the GNSO Council in December 2009 (Council resolution: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20091217-2) and in February 2010 the ICANN Board expressed support for the substantive content of the STI’s recommendations and passed a resolution directing ICANN staff to analyze the public comments on the proposal in developing the next version of the AGB (Board resolution: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-03-12-en#6). o Version 4 of the AGB was published for public comment in May 2010. Between Versions 4 and 7, a number of changes were made to the scope of the RPMs proposed in the AGB as a result of public comments received, including introduction of the “use” requirement for Sunrise, the removal of the requirement for “substantive examination” of marks accepted into the TMCH, and the mandating of both Sunrise and Trademark Claims as a result of the Board’s acceptance of Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) advice on the subject (ICANN Explanatory Memorandum: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-protection-claims-us.... For all the various versions of the AGB, links to public comments received, and other historical documents, see https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation). I hope the above links and information are helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of URS - Uniform Rapid Suspension System - MFSD <urs@mfsd.it> Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 08:16 To: icannlists <icannlists@winston.com> Cc: "J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week Was the Policy modified unilaterally by the TMCH operator? Ivett Paulovics URS Domain Dispute Case Manager --- MFSD Srl | IP Dispute Resolution Center Viale Beatrice d'Este, 20 | 20122 Milano (Italy) T +39 02 45506624 | F +39 02 91471087 M +39 329 2596103 urs@mfsd.it<mailto:responsabile@mfsd.it> | https://urs.mfsd.it[urs.mfsd.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urs.mfsd.it&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=9gvRz771ZrtEBExrG3rco5GC1jzDQ9Dp1lZq7OU_J08&s=FQRA_GFATNC5CHddY1Y7fn69_LuqIORFedS3BD2CsBw&e=> Skype mfsd.urs P. Iva 04810100968 (Italian VAT) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- URS Domain Dispute Resolution Service Provider approved by ICANN .it Domain Dispute Resolution Center accredited by Registry .it IP Mediation Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (no. 903) IP Mediation Training Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (no. 392) [cid:image001.png@01D2C3FF.4492BDB0] Il giorno 02 mag 2017, alle ore 22:23, icannlists <icannlists@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> ha scritto: It would benefit the multistakeholder community if the Policy as written and adopted by the Board was implemented, rather the Policy as modified unilaterally by the TMCH operator. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. icannlists@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of URS - Uniform Rapid Suspension System - MFSD Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 2:07 PM To: J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.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] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week Importance: High I don’t really understand whose benefit would it be making changes to TMCH on GIs… Surely not of right holders and consumers. Only because there is different approaches to their protection (however there is a common starting point: the TRIPs Agreement to which all WTO Member States adhere), it is not a reason to do such kind of limitation and excluding a part of the GIs. If a step ahead was made, why should we make a step behind? Ivett Paulovics URS Domain Dispute Case Manager --- MFSD Srl | IP Dispute Resolution Center Viale Beatrice d'Este, 20 | 20122 Milano (Italy) T +39 02 45506624 | F +39 02 91471087 M +39 329 2596103 urs@mfsd.it<mailto:responsabile@mfsd.it> | https://urs.mfsd.it[urs.mfsd.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urs.mfsd.it_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=9gvRz771ZrtEBExrG3rco5GC1jzDQ9Dp1lZq7OU_J08&s=GNYWZQT3twt_RtV69vKrVkxsaDbeXgnq_wNkUDsT-bQ&e=> Skype mfsd.urs P. Iva 04810100968 (Italian VAT) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- URS Domain Dispute Resolution Service Provider approved by ICANN .it Domain Dispute Resolution Center accredited by Registry .it IP Mediation Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (no. 903) IP Mediation Training Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (no. 392) <image001.png> Il giorno 02 mag 2017, alle ore 17:11, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> ha scritto: Massimo: As I stated earlier, you are correct. As originally conceived the Clearinghouse was to be a database and verification for all kinds of IP rights. It was our concept that by having a centralized database, this would allow registries in certain countries to protect IP that was recognized in their home country. For example, a German registry could offer protection for book titles which are IP in Germany. However, through the STI process and several iterations of the Applicant Guidebook responding to community input, that concept was discarded and the Clearinghouse was limited to registered trademarks or unregistered trademarks that had been recognized by a court of competent jurisdiction and trademarks protected by statute or treaty. Not GIs. J. Scott <image001.gif> 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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com[adobe.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adobe.com_&d=DwMFaQ&...> From: Massimo Vittori <Massimo@origin-gi.com<mailto:Massimo@origin-gi.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 7:06 AM To: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal<mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal>> Cc: "J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week J. Scott, we agree on the introduction, but not on the conclusion, as I would like to have a more in depth discussion on the inclusion of GIs in the TMCH. To follow-up on the historical context sent by Mary on 25 April, I note that the IRT report states: “Most pre-launch RPMs have focused on registered trademark rights of national or multi-national effect. Whilst it is expected that the IP Clearinghouse will predominantly feature data on such rights, some registry operators may opt to include as eligible for their pre-launch RPM other types of rights, such as unregistered trademarks, company names, trading names, designations of origin, geographical names, family and personal names, etc. Therefore, the IRT recommends that the IP Clearinghouse should be structured so that it can accommodate a panoply of such rights even if they are applicable to only a small number of registries.” I would like to discuss the rationale behind this. Best, Massimo From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jsevans@adobe.com] Sent: 02 May 2017 14:57 To: Massimo Vittori <Massimo@origin-gi.com<mailto:Massimo@origin-gi.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal<mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal>> Cc: J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week I think Massimo has hit on the correct perspective. The protection mechanism for GIs is not consistent. Given this reality, the TMCH should (at this stage at least) only include those GIs that are also registered trademarks. I hereby again support Paul McGrady’s proposal. J. Scott <image002.gif> 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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com[adobe.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adobe.com_&d=DwMFaQ&...> From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Massimo <Massimo@origin-gi.com<mailto:Massimo@origin-gi.com>> Date: Monday, May 1, 2017 at 11:49 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal<mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal>> Cc: "J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week Greg, Jonathan, my point is not whether GIs are equivalent to trademarks. The crucial issue is another: As part of the TRIPs agreement, every country in the world should protect GIs (no obligations as to the system to do so, but still obligation to give protection). There are at lest 8.000 GIs registered in the world through transparent processes that can be easily verifiable. I would like to discuss the practical problems, if any, to recognize this is the TMCH and beyond. As someone mentioned, this might take longer to analyze within the WG, but I think it is worth embarking on such discussion. If they get recognition, GIs can be an opportunity and increase the use of new gTLDs by a multitude of actors around the world. Best, Massimo ________________________________ From: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Sent: 01.05.2017 19:07 To: Jonathan Agmon<mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal> Cc: J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week Jonathan, I think you are incorrect in your statement of the USPTO's position regarding GIs. First, the document you rely on is clearly a document specifically written in the context of TRIPS. It is not "the USPTO's position on GIs." TRIPSseparately classifies different types of Intellectual Property as follows: 1. Copyright and Related Rights 2. Trademarks 3. Geographical Indications 4. Industrial Designs 5. Patents 6. Layout-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits 7. Protection of Undisclosed Information (This also answers your question to Paul McGrady regarding which treaties have differing treatment of GIs and trademarks). Second, this document was created in the specific context of a TRIPS-related trade dispute, where the EU contended that the US had failed to satisfy the TRIPS requirement that the US provide some form of protection to GIs. As a result, the USPTO needed to demonstrate that it was satisfying the TRIPS requirement, by showing that it was possible to protect GIs in the US in some fashion -- i.e., under trademark law. As the document states regarding the use of trademark law to protect GIs: "In addition to fulfilling all of the requirements of substantive GI and trademark obligations in TRIPS, this system meets the requirement for national treatment and the obligations in TRIPS regarding enforcement." Third, reading the document as a whole, it's the position of the USPTO is that GIs may be protected through trademark law, as the United States does, and therefore for US law purposes, GIs "may be viewed as a subset of trademarks" when determining how to protect them. It is clear that it is not the US position that the various forms of sui generis and ad hoc GI protection in various jurisdictions are a subset of trademark protection. It is also clear that it is not the US position that GIs and trademarks are indistinguishable or identical. This is consistent with TRIPS and WIPO treatment of GIs as separate and distinct types of IP. As such, it is clear that the US position is that GIs can only be protected under US law to the extent that they meet the existing standards for trademarks (including, when applicable, certification marks or collective marks). In the context of TRIPS, it is clear that the US position is that the US trademark system is sufficient to meet the TRIPS requirements for "equivalent" national protection of GIs. None of this supports the proposition that non-trademarks (and GIs are "non-trademarks" unless and until they are afforded trademark protection under trademark laws) should be introduced into the TMCH. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal<mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal>> wrote: When you say there is no agreement on the fact the GIs are not a subset of trademarks, are you saying that the USPTO's position is also wrong? <image003.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[na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...> 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. On 1 May 2017, at 23:30, icannlists <icannlists@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> wrote: Thanks Jonathan, There is no agreement that all GIs are a subset of trademarks. If a GI is registered as a trademark under a national law, then it is welcome in the TMCH. My proposal makes that clear. What you are proposing is not that. You are proposing that all GIs be treated as trademarks even if they are not registered as trademarks under a national law. There is no broad international consensus on this point (as evidenced by the divide within the IPC itself which is playing out on the larger PDP WG list). Further, there is zero current policy within ICANN allowing for GIs which are not otherwise registered as trademarks under a national law to be included in the policy. Zero. You are suggesting a change in ICANN Policy. That cannot be done without thinking through the implications and the potential implementation issues, and that takes time – in this case, at least months, but perhaps even more. Best, Paul From: Jonathan Agmon [mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:22 AM To: icannlists <icannlists@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> Cc: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org>>; J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week Paul, Since GIs are a subset of trademarks, which policy exactly did you have in mind requiring changes. If the proposal only allows GIs registered in national trademark registers or their GI alternative, what different implementation you think is required aside from clarifying to the TMCH that it can record registered GIs because they are a subset of trademarks, exactly like collective marks? I fail to see the issue when the changes discussed in relation to other questions on the charter seem more far reaching and complicated. Thanks, <image001.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[na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...> T SG +65 6532 2577<tel:+65%206532%202577> T US +1 212 999 6180<tel:(212)%20999-6180> T IL +972 9 950 7000<tel:+972%209-950-7000> F IL +972 9 950 5500<tel:+972%209-950-5500> 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. On 1 May 2017, at 23:01, icannlists <icannlists@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> wrote: Hi Jonathan, I’m not artificially amending anything. You are proposing a policy change. In ICANNland, Policy changes are always followed by implementation and, generally speaking, the PDP WG should send some signals about possible implementation along with the proposed policy. There is no such thing as suggesting a sweeping change to Policy like you are proposing, without also building out what that would look like. If you are proposing a policy change with no thought to how it will be implemented, I think most of us who have been around ICANN awhile will tell you that won’t fly. Best, Paul From: Jonathan Agmon [mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 8:41 PM To: icannlists <icannlists@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> Cc: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org>>; J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week Dear Paul, I most certainly have not. The USPTO classifies GIs as a subset of trademarks. Most other countries on the planet view them similarly as an indication of source of goods and they are registered in either national trademark registries or specific GI registries. What I stated was that GIs registered in both national trademark registry and national GI registry should enter the TMCH. No more, no less; or as some of the other colleagues on the list would put it – period. ☺ The fact that you disagree that GIs can serve and do serve as trademarks is your own view and opinion, which you are mostly certainly entitled thereto. Thus, if you want to go ahead and suggest an alternative proposal to mine which recommends working on a GICH or other Claims/Sunrise processes, please go ahead. Otherwise, kindly don't artificially amend my proposal to include in it language I did not put in. Kind regards, <image001.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[na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...> T SG +65 6532 2577<tel:+65%206532%202577> T US +1 212 999 6180<tel:(212)%20999-6180> T IL +972 9 950 7000<tel:+972%209-950-7000> F IL +972 9 950 5500<tel:+972%209-950-5500> 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. On 1 May 2017, at 4:01, icannlists <icannlists@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> wrote: You have Jonathan. Under current policy as implemented by the Board in the AGB, we don’t currently have a clearinghouse mechanism to hold GIs that are not also registered as trademarks nor do we have any Sunrise-like or Claims-like mechanisms to use any future GI data that may be lodged in a GICH. The TMCH took months to develop and so would a GICH. I see no reason to assume that GIs should automatically co-reside with trademarks in the TMCH nor any reason to assume that the parameters of any Claims or Sunrises based on GI data would be co-extensive with TM Claims and Sunrise. If this GIs issue persists, i.e. we do anything with it other than a recommendation asking the GNSO Council to ask the Board to tell the TMCH operator to stop letting GIs in and retire the ones they have let in, we will be developing new policy (not insisting on accurate implementation of old policy) and thus starting from scratch to address it. Any effort to develop new RPMs will add months (years?) to this process. Best, Paul From: Jonathan Agmon [mailto:jonathan.agmon@ip-law.legal] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 8:55 AM To: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org>>; J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>; icannlists <icannlists@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week Paul, Who suggested "that a separate GICH be built along with GISunrise and GIClaims"? I didn't see such a proposal... Perhaps you can direct us to one? Thanks? <image001.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[na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...> T SG +65 6532 2577<tel:+65%206532%202577> T US +1 212 999 6180<tel:(212)%20999-6180> T IL +972 9 950 7000<tel:+972%209-950-7000> F IL +972 9 950 5500<tel:+972%209-950-5500> 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@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com> Sent: 30 April 2017 20:00 To: jmalcolm@eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week Thanks Jeremy. I think the problem came up because the TMCH operator has let a few in under an assumption, even though no one can find any guidance in the GNSO Policy, IRT Recommendations, STI Report, Board Resolutions or the AGB supporting the notion. If this group doesn’t affirmatively say “stop that” then presumably the TMCH operator will keep doing it and more GIs will get in. So, unless we are happy with the status quo where the TMCH operator is letting in things no one intended to be let in, I think we have to address the issue. Even so, there are those on the list who want GIs to be welcome into the TMCH or that a separate GICH be built along with GISunrise and GIClaims. While these things are not necessary off-charter, such activities could easily add a year or more to this PDP. That is not my favorite outcome. 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 Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 8:22 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week On 29/4/17 6:32 am, Jonathan Agmon wrote: The USPTO is in the US. Perhaps the EPO's and many other Trademark Offices' positions is also relevant. My point, which I feel I am not getting through, is that the US positron is not the only one. Nearly every country on the planet has some laws relating to GI protection and I am arguing most of them view them as a form of trademarks. I don't see the reason why not to include a registered GI in the TMCH. They are after all trademarks, when registered. Can you help me out here to understand your objection and the reasons for it? If others (non US countries) see GIs as trademarks and allow them to be registered, why exclude them? Forgive my ignorance, has this discussion happened elsewhere? The proposition that GIs should be recognized alongside trademarks in the DNS is surely a far bigger one than the RPMs working group. Not the kind of thing that we could just slip in as an assumption. I for one would certainly have a lot more to say about the merits of recognizing GIs in the DNS, if that were our discussion. But I doubt it's a discussion for this working group. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org[na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Feff.org-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C2a527ab7ab484776d14108d49127704b-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636293045965650537-26sdata-3DM7jbXsB3Nj74BKIky3iDRkI6ttwDjkknOsHRMvCZ92w-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=9gvRz771ZrtEBExrG3rco5GC1jzDQ9Dp1lZq7OU_J08&s=YZkglR7-A330pOliQA_ndYiRFizpyIDQJxb_Svv5y-M&e=> jmalcolm@eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161<tel:(415)%20436-9333> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt[na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.eff.org-252Ffiles-252F2016-252F11-252F27-252Fkey-5Fjmalcolm.txt-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C2a527ab7ab484776d14108d49127704b-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636293045965650537-26sdata-3D0pFwVhTxKisQ4u15Psg4NE98rm-252BA8v4XhitEgciB-252BBc-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=9gvRz771ZrtEBExrG3rco5GC1jzDQ9Dp1lZq7OU_J08&s=PFQqLeE3L4L_PmQLfFt40W7_gqfZIVCNIQwYboEDzPk&e=> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 ________________________________ 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. ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************ 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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg[na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann.org-252Fmailman-252Flistinfo-252Fgnso-2Drpm-2Dwg-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C2a527ab7ab484776d14108d49127704b-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636293045965650537-26sdata-3DWD9nLKJRx4V-252BevaqC3HiPRsHvVcwnAWzEFuMv90CAcU-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=9gvRz771ZrtEBExrG3rco5GC1jzDQ9Dp1lZq7OU_J08&s=7s8EQ3qNUY8VzL-14NOWJDUQw8jql9eIF_Q-g5EnPw0&e=> _______________________________________________ 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
