Thanks Kathy. Are there STI record showing that it was affirmatively open? It may have been simply not discussed and each side assumed their own view? I admit to not recalling, but I think we need to check the STI records to confirm one way or another (if possible).
Best,
Paul
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 10:14 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
I have yet to review this material, but I have been reaching out to STI Members. When the TMCH Database left the STI, GNSO Council, and ICANN Board acceptance it was an open database.
I think we have an interesting issue to review.
Best, Kathy
On 3/29/2017 10:17 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone,
If it will help, the need to maintain the confidentiality of the TMCH Database (TMDB) was discussed by the Implementation Assistance Group (IAG), working between October 2011 and May 2012 and consisting of community volunteers. The IAG was convened to develop and recommend business requirements around specific issues in the provision of Sunrise and Claims Notification services through the TMCH.
The attached document excerpts some text from the IAG’s final report that seems to indicate that the IAG considered the question as to whether and why the TMDB was to be a confidential database. Please note that staff is providing this text purely for informational purposes, and takes no position as to whether or not the TMDB should continue to remain confidential.
Cheers
Mary
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>
Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 23:08
To: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans@adobe.com>
Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>, Michael Karanicolas <michael@law-democracy.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
I've not yet seen any such articulated reasons. Care to provide them?
Sent from my iPad
On 28 Mar 2017, at 22:40, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote:Paul:
I think the proponents of the closed database have repeatedly articulated the benefits they see in a closed database. That is the status quo. In order to change the status quo, it is the proponents for an open system that need to articulate (persuasively) an overriding need or benefit for such a change.
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.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating <paul@law.es>
Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 12:21 PM
To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be>
Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>, Michael Karanicolas <michael@law-democracy.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
Question.
solutions for the issues and concerns that have been
mitigated by having the database be closed
Can someone please list the issues and concerns at issue here?
And, how has closing the database mitigated any of them?
Sent from my iPad
On 28 Mar 2017, at 21:07, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> wrote:solutions for the issues and concerns that have been
mitigated by having the database be closed
_______________________________________________gnso-rpm-wg mailing listgnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg