Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised. There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance? Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
(1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Agree with Jeff.
Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important than any other public comment?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final.pdf.
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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg