With all due respect Rebecca, any person or entity that wants a domain can and should run a trademark search. They don’t need the Clearinghouse for that. 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 3/28/17, 12:52 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Marie Pattullo" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of marie.pattullo@aim.be> wrote: Thanks Rebecca. If anyone wants to know what TMs exist, search a TM Registry. They're public. Claims Notices in the TMCH context tell you only that a TM owner has recorded that name - not that they are going to take action against you. They're not the same thing. Marie Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos > On 28 Mar 2017, at 21:20, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: > > I think the value of transparency has been articulated here several > times, whether or not you agree: legitimate market entrants--who, not > for nothing, are also likely to be trademark owners--may want to know > what they can do. People concerned with the integrity of the register > want to know whether (as current data seem to indicate) many of the > existing registrants and many existing claims notices are asserting > control over domain names whose value is distinct from trademark value > attributable to the registrant. Those are the usual values of > transparency: knowing what's going on so one can order one's own > behavior accordingly, and/or advocate for change where change is > desirable. > > On the other side, I find persuasive the argument that cybersquatters > generally don't need to consult any records to figure out what domains > they want and thus I find it hard to identify the harm to be avoided. > We are talking here about the marginal impact of transparency in the > TMCH added to the public nature of registration (searchable online in > many large nations) and the public nature of trademark fame (e.g., > Twentieth Century Fox, to take an example that's been discussed). For > me, transparency in the TMCH would provide a lot of TMCH-relevant > information but has only a marginal effect on information about > trademark values generally, arguing in favor of transparency. > Rebecca Tushnet > Georgetown Law > 703 593 6759 > > >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> wrote: >> Can we look at what we are trying to achieve maybe? What greater good would an open database give balanced against the harm TM owners would suffer? >> >> No one wants to promote bad players for a theory. What is the reality? We all want a clean space. We all want legal commercial growth. And we all want the common good. No? >> >> Marie >> >> Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos >> >>> On 28 Mar 2017, at 20:38, Michael Karanicolas <michael@law-democracy.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Greg, >>> >>> If I had a perfect solution to prevent cybersquatting in my pocket I >>> probably would have led with it :) >>> >>> That said, my aim in drafting that was to try and help frame the >>> discussion, rather than to try and close it. Look, my expertise is >>> more on the transparency side than on the trademark side. But on the >>> transparency side, we deal with potential harms all the time - be they >>> for information involving national security, personal privacy - or >>> legitimate commercial interests like trademark protection. And >>> generally, we seek to find an avenue forward which provides adequate >>> protection for these interests, while respecting the overarching >>> interest in openness. This calculus shouldn't mean that openness is >>> abandoned whenever a potential for harm is encountered. Indeed, if >>> that were the case almost no information would end up being put out >>> there. Rather, it means assessing the specific harms that would flow >>> directly from the specific disclosures, weighing them against the >>> public interest in disclosure, and seeking ways to work around those >>> harms which also provide for maximum openness. >>> >>> So, while I don't have a readymade solution to present, I do think we >>> need to work together to find one. Reverting to secrecy is just not >>> consistent with ICANN's broader mission, given that the entire model >>> is based on public oversight and accountability. >>> >>> Looking forward to engaging on this further. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> P.S. I'm not sure why it's at all relevant who actually drafted the >>> text of the EFF letter? As someone who's been involved in many similar >>> efforts, they can be done fully collaboratively, or with one or two of >>> the signatories taking the lead. Either way though, all of the names >>> attached to it have approved and endorsed it. These are very senior >>> and respected experts - they don't just throw their names on any >>> document that's sent their way. If they signed the letter it means >>> they support it - what does it matter who held the pen? >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Michael, >>>> >>>> Do you have any solutions for the issues and concerns that have been >>>> mitigated by having the database be closed? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> Greg Shatan >>>> C: 917-816-6428 >>>> S: gsshatan >>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>>> gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Michael Karanicolas >>>> <michael@law-democracy.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Just building on the discussion around transparency, after hearing the >>>>> conversation at ICANN 58 I drafted my own short note setting out my >>>>> thoughts on the issue, which I'm attaching here. >>>>> >>>>> I want to be mindful of the conversation on inputs which is ongoing >>>>> now - so hopefully it isn't out of place or inappropriate to submit my >>>>> thoughts via this method. >>>>> >>>>> I very much look forward to further discussions on this issue. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Michael Karanicolas >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Thanks Mary. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Co-Chairs, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we >>>>>> would be >>>>>> discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with >>>>>> respect to >>>>>> design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database? >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect >>>>>> to >>>>>> this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other >>>>>> issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion >>>>>> around >>>>>> the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), >>>>>> as I >>>>>> think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow >>>>>> down >>>>>> out work. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>>>> >>>>>> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA >>>>>> >>>>>> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 >>>>>> >>>>>> Mclean, VA 22102, United States >>>>>> >>>>>> E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >>>>>> >>>>>> T: +1.703.635.7514 >>>>>> >>>>>> M: +1.202.549.5079 >>>>>> >>>>>> @Jintlaw >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org >>>>>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] >>>>>> On Behalf Of Mary Wong >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM >>>>>> To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars >>>>>> and >>>>>> information on Deloitte Ancillary Services >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following >>>>>> two >>>>>> matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested >>>>>> document (for #1) and information (for #2). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and >>>>>> practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with >>>>>> certain aspects of the TMCH: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org.... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is >>>>>> permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject >>>>>> to >>>>>> ICANN’s authorization. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Extended Claims Services >>>>>> >>>>>> The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark >>>>>> Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name >>>>>> registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party’s >>>>>> recorded >>>>>> labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a >>>>>> domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the >>>>>> potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such >>>>>> registrant >>>>>> intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark >>>>>> Clearinghouse). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Audit Report >>>>>> >>>>>> Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and >>>>>> Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark >>>>>> Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing >>>>>> of >>>>>> matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse >>>>>> and >>>>>> domain names registered in an Eligible TLD. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> FYI, Deloitte’s contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on >>>>>> the >>>>>> fifth anniversary of ICANN’s entry into a Registry Agreement under the >>>>>> New >>>>>> gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although >>>>>> Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint >>>>>> additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been >>>>>> completed >>>>>> under the New gTLD Program. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and cheers >>>>>> >>>>>> Mary >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > > !DSPAM:58dab77f17161052319515! > > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...