Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group
Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 18 January 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/JZ3DAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-18jan17-en.mp3 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for 18 January 2017: Terri Agnew 2:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 18 January 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew 2:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_J... George Kirikos:Hi everyone. Paul Tattersfield:Hi George, Everyone Ivett Paulovics:Hello everyone, greetings from Italy. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Paul Tattersfield:For people not able to attend the meeting ICANN publishes the .mp3 - I was wondering if it would be possible for ICANN to publish a recording of the meeting? George Kirikos:Hi Paul. How's it going? Paul Tattersfield:So those not able to attend could 'watch' the meeting i.e. see the slides and audio in real time while listening to the audio Mary Wong:@Paul, do you mean a live stream? George Kirikos:@Paul: I think they tecnically can save the Adobe sessions. Not sure if they've been doing that, though. Paul Tattersfield:Yes Mary George Kirikos:*technically, even Paul Tattersfield:something like https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__helpx.adobe.com_adobe-2... perhaps? Mary Wong:@Paul, during ICANN meetings there's usually a live audio stream (but not for regular WG meetings outside the ICANN meeting) Paul Tattersfield:that's a good way to describe what I was thinking George 'save the session' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):do we need to log in again? Philip Corwin:I am attempting to call in Philip Corwin:When I call in the recording starts, cuts out, then drops me. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):skype to 1800 usually works Paul Tattersfield:It would really improve the experience for those not able to attend the calls because of TimeZone considerations I was thinking Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I meant to one of the toll free phones in US Philip Corwin:Just requested a dial out George Kirikos:@Paul / @Mary: See https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__archive.icann.org_en_mee... for how they've been archived in the past. Terri Agnew 2:We are having the dial out to Phil Philip Corwin:Thx Terry. Awaiting call Terri Agnew 2:Phil has joined on audio Philip Corwin:I am now connected by phone Lori Schulman:Hello. Sorry that I am late. WIPO:We have tried over a dozen times, and keep getting dropped from the line before an operator comes on. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Me too Renee Fossen (Forum):same WIPO:We have (finally) made it on the call. Philip Corwin:Same here -- co-chairs get same treatment ;-) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Switched to speakers for now...no mic. will keep trying to call. George Kirikos:Probably too many meetings scheduled at noon Eastern time. If we were to schedule the call at 11:45 am Eastern, probably easier for everyone to get on..... Alternatively, if there was an automated way to get on (i.e. with individual PIN codes), instead of requiring human intervention for each caller. Terri Agnew 2:I am having the operator report his issue on joining audio Terri Agnew 2:Please let me know if a dial out on the telephone is needed Beth Bacon:I also had an issue dialing in. The line kept disconnecting. Terri Agnew 2:@Beth, I am sending you a private AC chat George Kirikos:For 1.(iii) do these options even exist at present? George Kirikos:(i.e. the TMCH might clearly communicate that those options don't exist) :-) Mary Wong:@Phil, that was the point staff had wondered too - how would people know if they can't search the database? Mary Wong:There was a lot of community feedback - to the 2015 RPM Staff Paper - about inconsistencies and difficulties with submissions into the TMCH. Susan Payne:perhaps you could share paul's comments since he did not send to the list Mary Wong:@Susan we will follow up with Paul. George Kirikos:Since the underlying TMs are public, it's difficult to justify why the TMCH recordals are not public. Kathy Kleiman:Tx Beth, I think that's exactly what we are looking for (i) and (ii) Lori Schulman:Because what you chose to record can be part of an underlying proprietary stategy...which marks may have more value or be part of a greater enforcement plan George Kirikos:Remember, that people are registering common terms like "pizza" into the TMCH, see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014_... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):in russian case it was more generic IDN name for "we" Mary Wong:I believe TM holders and agents have to provide the relevant description of goods and services according to the Nice classification, as well as registration number and jurisdiction, when submitting a registered TM. Kathy Kleiman:Mary: can we add what Phil just said to our Notes -- are there any troubles for multiple registrations of the same TM string by multiple trademark owners? Mary Wong:@Kathy, I'll double check the transcript and add, yes, thank you. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for example one company has right for "special kind of boots" in France and the other in China? Mary Wong:The TMCH Guidelines provide a sample of a signed Declaration of Use, but specifically for a sample of proof of use, it's not an exhaustive list (meant to be flexible) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):but if a person sends only one existing item in the world to the only customer (nis neighbour) is it a valid proof of use? Susan Payne:Would it be helpful for us to pull out the comments submitted to the staff RPMs review of examples of problems. Would the Implementation Review also have anything relevant on this - apologies I do not recall? George Kirikos:*6 to mute/unmute Jonathan Matkowsky - RiskIQ:I'm not muted Terri Agnew 2:@Jonathan, your mic isn't active Kathy Kleiman:@Mary: could you kindly add the words "piecemeal approachand clarity of proof of use Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think we disconnected from bridge (adobe users) Terri Agnew 2:to activate your mic, top tool bar, telephone icon and follow prompts Jonathan Matkowsky - RiskIQ:I can type my comment Jonathan Matkowsky - RiskIQ:Not sure what the problem is with the mic, sorry about that Kathy Kleiman: @Mary... to the NOtes. I think it will help peopel remember this discussion. Mary Wong:@Susan, we have a link to the public comments and staff summary for the 2015 paper. I will check if I've uploaded it to the wiki. Jonathan Matkowsky - RiskIQ:I am on Adobe connect Jonathan Matkowsky - RiskIQ:In any case, I just wanted to promote transparency in the process Jonathan Matkowsky - RiskIQ:Perhaps an analogy can be made to prosecution of a specimen in the USPTO David McAuley (RySG):yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):a screenshot of the website (anyone can create one with offers of somethings non-existent) is a valid proof of use? https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademark-2Dclearing... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Can anyone weigh in on the process over time? did people experience troubles early on? did people have the same troubles recently? Did the issues change, get better, get worse? Was there a learning curve that the TMCH needed? Mary Wong:The contract is not published, but there is a summary framework that was published - I will try to find it. George Kirikos:If one eliminated proof of use, one would need to balance that with reduced benefits for TMCH recordals. Personally, the TMCH could be entirely eliminated if each national TM office had an automated API (some appear to have one, e.g. see aggregated search sites like TMview, https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.tmdn.org_tmview_wel... George Kirikos:(registrars could then query national TM offices via APIs, and create the "notice" that way to domain name registrants) Marie Pattullo:@George: TMView is great, as a work in progress. It's still being developed (moved over to the ECP in the EUIPO) but it's really not reliable at the moment. Also TMView would never have the technical capability to interact with the registries. Mary Wong:Summary of Validation Framework agreement (Deloitte): https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a... Lillian Fosteris:Kristine - I'd say the TMCH has been inconsistent in how stringent it is in its review of each TMCH registration (both errors in the TMCH submission and then whether the POU was accepted or not). For example, a lot of marks were marked as "Incorrect" a year after the marks were submitted and accepted to the TMCH. In some cases, there were errors in the TMCH information submitted originally and in other cases, the POU was marked as insufficient (even though it had been approved originally). So, I'd say a little bit of learning at the beginning, but generally an issue with consistency across marks and time. George Kirikos:@Marie: right. Perhaps the money would be better spent making that system more reliable (a "carrot" by ICANN to national TM offices), rather than trying to duplicate and reinvent things via the TMCH. Mary Wong:Summary of Database Framework agreement (IBM): https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a... Lori Schulman:Not all TM offices requre proof of use upon initial registration Jeff Neuman (Valideus):@Kathy - You state "a llot of frustration in the community". Can you point to a source where the community has stated that they are frustrated? Lori Schulman:US is an outlier I think. It's been a while since I have done global registrations but I recall that standards vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I wonder how transparent is a secret contract with ICANN (conflict of interests potentially exists) ? George Kirikos:Right, Lori. The "benefits" for TM holders would need to be scaled back accordingly (i.e. no more "first dibs" in sunrise). Jonathan Matkowsky - RiskIQ:Broad stakeholder discussions took place to develop the proof of userequirement, intended to ensure that all registered trademarks are treated equally inorder to be eligible to participate in Sunrise periods. Requirements related to proof usemay be taken into account as a larger topic for consideration in policy development andother community discussions. Lori Schulman:George, that is not the point. The point is that unique proof of use for sunrise makes sense since global practice varies. Jonathan Matkowsky - RiskIQ:This is from the 2015 Rights Protection Mechanisms Review Revised REport Marie Pattullo:@George - it's already funded but by the EUIPO - many, many carrots have been held out to the NPTOs under the new EUTMR and this is one of them... ;-). George Kirikos:i.e. if the goal of the TMCH is simply to reduce cybersquatting, increased notice to prospective registrants is a sufficient safeguard. Jumping to the front of the line (which is a "benefit" diminished in many ways due to "premium" pricing by registry operators in any event) should be an entirely separate discussion (one that I don't see as justified). Jonathan Matkowsky - RiskIQ:There's no mention of the concern of transparency or inconsistency George Kirikos:@Lori: I agree with you. George Kirikos:Since the average number of sunrise registrations is around 300 or so, the "actual" benefits to those companies routinely registering in all gTLDs (e.g. Apple, Microsoft, Google) are really small, when you think about it. Marie Pattullo:5 years to prove use in the EU. George Kirikos:*actual benefits overall, I mean (I'm sure those 300 companies like jumping to the front of the line) George Kirikos:Presumably the TMCH goes to shows run by folks like INTA, etc. to drum up business (i.e. "educate"). Kurt Pritz:Proactive: The TMCH conducts webinars for agents and also for individual TLDs to announce their sunrise periods David McAuley (RySG):very feint George Kirikos:Volume low for Kristine. David McAuley (RySG):that is better sound George Kirikos:Here's what a TMCH notice looks like: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014_... It doesn't seem to link to the TMCH itself for further details, etc. George Kirikos:(I don't register new gTLDs, so I've never seen one personally) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:For sake for arguement: Education about notices still seem odd. The TMCH didn't write it. They are providing a token to the registrar who then displays a form notice. Mary Wong:Note that we have a specific Charter question (in a subsequent category) about outreach, at least w.r.t. developing countries: "How accessible is the TMCH Database and RPM Rights Protection Actions and Defenses to individuals, organizations and rights-holders; as well as trademark agents in developing countries?" Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, Susan, +1, thats that I was saying. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ICANN's part of TMCH? Lori Schulman:My response dove tails Susan's. I think that end users who receive notices probably do need education. Lori Schulman:But not necessarily TMCH Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:but the TMCH is a rather neutral provider of data. I think training for registrants would fall on ICANN, as directed by the community. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the language of the claim notice is horrible Lori Schulman:doing the training Lori Schulman:TM owners would agree that the language is horrible. Not clear. Lori Schulman:Confusing and inconsistent. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:and how do you provide notice without giving legal advice Susan Payne:Kathy - that sounds like relevant feedback - perhaps you could ask them to subbmit it to the WG if we are to take it into account Jonathan Matkowsky - RiskIQ:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.google.com_url-3Fq-... Mary Wong:That is the final input from the Implementation Asssistance Group for the TMCH, I think Mary Wong:(Jonathan's link, I mean) George Kirikos:With ICANN staff away for their retreat, etc. next week, are we having a call next Wednesday? Mary Wong:2012 Mary Wong:This is the IAG Kathy Kleiman:Tx for the link! Mary Wong:That document has been uploaded to the TMCH information page on the WG wiki :) Paul Tattersfield:@George isn't it at the new time of 4.00am GMT? Terri Agnew 2:Next call: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 04:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):most people can not read in English , and it is a must to use it in the claim notice George Kirikos:So, that'll be Tuesday night Eastern time. Mary Wong:Staff will be available to staff the call but NamesCon may be a bigger problem Mary Wong:TMCH informational page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_0... (IAG report is the final entry under Operational Requirements) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:What was the result of the straw poll staff sent around? George Kirikos:I'd vote to skip it....maybe have a vote? Susan Payne:unless we have no chairs I think we should proceed Griffin Barnett:@Maxim, I thought that Claims notices must be presented in English as well as the language of the domain name registration agreement but staff or others may be able to confirm this George Kirikos:Skip = Agree, Don't skip = disagree. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Nevermind. the straw poll was for a differnt group Mary Wong:@Griffin, correct Beth Allegretti:I'd also vote to skip it because of NamesCon Lori Schulman:George is multitasking... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if the first part in English - most do not scroll Susan Payne:why would we skip? routinely some people cannot make calls but we don't cancel Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree to proceed George Kirikos:I can make it....won't affect me. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and the wording in rpm requirement - in English and in other language Paul Tattersfield:Agreee proceed Mary Wong:0400 UTC George Kirikos:Tuesday night eastern time (0400 UTC Wednesday) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bit early for EU Mary Wong:Evening/night for North America, daytime for APAC Terri Agnew 2:20:00 PST (Tuesday), 23:00 EST (Tuesday), 04:00 London,05:00 CET Kathy Kleiman:Our first meeting at the AP-friendly time. David McAuley (RySG):Thanks Phil, staff, all Jonathan Matkowsky - RiskIQ:Have a great day everyone! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:thanks all1 George Kirikos:We should monitor the AP attendance next week, to see if folks from that region show up en masse. George Kirikos:(if not, perhaps rethink the time)
Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held on Wednesday, 01 February 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/OZ3DAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-01feb17-en.mp3 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for 01 February 2017: Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 01 February 2017 at 17:00 UTC Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_O Z3DAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ OZ3DAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WSyDAOtLazkJ9WTqW0MuhW02WrFFsSKdjt7PMqZyYT A&s=IZsuiqc1mNll40DaHMSb0sI7U43OD2rsTQ51jeZZxsE&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WSyDAOtLazkJ9WTqW0MuhW02WrFFsSKdjt7PMqZyYTA&s=IZ suiqc1mNll40DaHMSb0sI7U43OD2rsTQ51jeZZxsE&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. Jay Chapman:Howdy, George George Kirikos:Hey Jay. Nat Cohen:Hi Goerge, Jay, all Nat Cohen:George Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All George Kirikos:Welcome, Nat and Maxim. Steve Levy:Hi everyone George Kirikos:Hi Steve. Philip Corwin:Hello all George Kirikos:Hey Phil. Terri Agnew:currently all can scroll slides themselves Mary Wong:I've now posted the 4 options in the Notes pod on the right hand side (they were also in the email sent out with the agenda) Mary Wong:Note that Deloitte's response provides some information about the kind of outreach and education they have performed. George Kirikos:Here's Deloitte's response on the wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pag es_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D64066042 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pa ges_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D64066042&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfk bPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WSyDAOtLa zkJ9WTqW0MuhW02WrFFsSKdjt7PMqZyYTA&s=imAC6_x5U3DY_WZyu3ttvahW8gA17KvjKVMQ27g 8648&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WSyDAOtLazkJ9WTqW0MuhW02WrFFsSKdjt7PMqZyYTA&s=im AC6_x5U3DY_WZyu3ttvahW8gA17KvjKVMQ27g8648&e= Mary Wong:We have Deloitte's response available to post in the Adobe Connect room as well. Mary Wong:They are on the wiki, let me get the link. Mary Wong:Final agreed list of TMCH Charter questions (16 questions in 6 categories): https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow nload_attachments_58729944_Clean-2520-2D-2520TMCH-2520Charter-2520Questions- 2520-2D-25206-2520Jan-25202017.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D148472 1370000-26api-3Dv2 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do wnload_attachments_58729944_Clean-2520-2D-2520TMCH-2520Charter-2520Questions -2520-2D-25206-2520Jan-25202017.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D14847 21370000-26api-3Dv2&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r =DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WSyDAOtLazkJ9WTqW0MuhW02WrFFs SKdjt7PMqZyYTA&s=rH8C1qsR79QYl0JvWieDDSsaBWNGSzeCmnyz_HwoppI&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WSyDAOtLazkJ9WTqW0MuhW02WrFFsSKdjt7PMqZyYTA&s=rH 8C1qsR79QYl0JvWieDDSsaBWNGSzeCmnyz_HwoppI&e= George Kirikos:We're able to scroll ourselves now. Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves on the document George Kirikos:Most of their outreach appears to be geared to the IP constituency (as one might expect), rather than to registrants (or prospective registrants) who are affected by the claims process. Edward Morris:The education seems only oriented towards rights holders - what about registrants? George Kirikos:+1 Edward Mary Wong:@George, from what Deloitte has said publicly, it seems that they consider their primary audience TM rights holders and their agents Kurt Pritz:That is not surprising to me. Marc Trachtenberg:Why would their audience be anyone other than TM rights holders since the TNCH is a respository of TM rights? George Kirikos:@Marc: Well, if the ability to challenge recordals existed, then the potential audience would include those "challengers" (i.e. registrants and prospective registrants, typically, although perhaps also registries/registrars). David McAuley (RySG):I took a look at Deloitte's answers David McAuley (RySG):they sounded frustrated with some of the q's Marc Trachtenberg:@George: They reached out to TM Rights holders becuase they wanted people to use the TMCH. They had no obligatio to reach out to anyone Susan Payne:This is exactly as I expected from Deloitte. They do not consider it to be their role and remit to educate. where they did so, it was to educate those who would be considered the users/customers of their services David McAuley (RySG):agreed Kathy - some answers quite informative Marc Trachtenberg:The TMCH is a database not a university. George Kirikos:@Marc: Agree, it's to be expected, given that their mission is to make $$$$$. That's why the hybrid model, where ICANN can look at other stakeholders (like registrants, etc) is appealing. Susan Payne:+1 Marc Marc Trachtenberg:The obligation to communicate and educate stakeholders regarding the TMCH falls on ICANN, not the TMCH Marie Pattullo:But George, all the TMCH does is record legal TMs. So if a "challenger" thought the recordal was wrong, he'd oppose the TM itself in the relevant TM Registry. George Kirikos:@Marie: Not quite, since they also test for "use" (not just registration). The "use" can be entirely bogus, and subject to challenge. Lori Schulman:Use isnt' challenged at TMCH level, is it? Griffin Barnett:@George, I don't think that's quite right actually....you can record a mark in the TMCH without proof of use, you just can't use it to make Sunrise registrations without providing acceptable proof of use Lori Schulman:I would image it would have to be at either an admin hearing or court proceeding as with all TM matters Mary Wong:@Griffin, yes, that is the case. Griffin Barnett:So I think Marie's point above is still correct George Kirikos:The sunrise scenario is the main one --- a registrant won't really care if they get "notice", but can still ignore it and get the domain they requested. George Kirikos:i.e. that's where the "gaming" aspect of the TMCH is highest, for use to get first dibs during sunrise. Philip Corwin:On the education issue, of course the TMCH's primary focus is going to be on making its potential customers, who are rights holders. The venues it is active in will get some attendance from sophisticated domain investors and their counsel, but not ordinary registrants. For ordinary registrants, the primary factor they need to understand is whether receipt of a Claims Notice means that continuing with a registration meamns they will be commiting infringement. Marc Trachtenberg:@Phil: Agree but it is not the responsobility of the TMCH to educate registrants - that is the job of ICANN Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Philip Mary Wong:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org _en_about_trademark-2Dclearinghouse_registries-2Dregistrars_reports&d=DwICaQ &c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qf qa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=WSyDAOtLazkJ9WTqW0MuhW02WrFFsSKdjt7PMqZyYTA&s=SJx60dlhvyQ RRDrggxZPCiQW8oQCoN4C-0522Bri0W0&e= Kurt Pritz:My takeaway is that the TMCH exceeded expectations on education, we expected them to be a mere repository, However, communications on the new gTLD overall should be approved. ICANN should develop an alternate communications plan and can ask the TMCH to undertake pertinent (to TM holders) parts of it if that makes sense and communicate to registrants and other through other chanels. Mary Wong:On screen now - the full Deloitte response to all the questions. Philip Corwin:For those ordinary registrants, my own view is that the best way to educate them is to develop some information understandable by laymen, but not constituting legal advice, available on the ICANN website with a link in a revised Claims Notice, supplemented by a similar information sheet that can be distributed to registrars and made available to their customers. Griffin Barnett:Agree w/ Marc and Kurt Kurt Pritz:The costs of communications should not be passed onto TMCH registrants George Kirikos:+1 Phil. Marc Trachtenberg:@ Phil - Sounds like you agree with me that this is ICANN's responsibility George Kirikos:@Marc: in conjunction with registrars, too. Marie Pattullo:Agree with Phil re the registrars; that's where registrants go after all, and they should explain the process Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:So Icann can have a SPV for Educaton Purposes Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:there it will solve the entire Saga Griffin Barnett:I have no problem with including a link to ICANN educational materials in a TM Claims Notice Marc Trachtenberg:@ George - Are you saying registrars need to also be educated, or that they have an obligation to ecuate registrants? Edward Morris:Agree with Phil George Kirikos:@Marc: They'd be posting the link to ICANN materials, etc. (i.e. it should be part of their registration flow, or duplicated in their FAQs, etc.). Marc Trachtenberg:@George - I have no problem with them doing that and they should do that. However they have no obligation to do that unless put in the RAA Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:@George @Marc I think it is Icann or Registrars - isnt it the same thing ? Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:Infact if they are doing business on registrants' money Might as well be a part of the Education effort Marc Trachtenberg:@ Vaibhav - ICANN and the Registrars are not the same thing. They are separate legal entities in a contactualrelationship. Griffin Barnett:Number 5 appears directed to rights holders themselves to challenge a rejection of their mark being recorded Marie Pattullo:See above - don't see how the TMCH can be somewhere to oppose a TM. George Kirikos:"an objection to an accepted recordal" (vs a challenge of a rejected recordal) for #5 Mary Wong:@George, if something is rejected, it won't become a recordal Marie Pattullo:Re Mary's point, Lori explained why TM holders don't support the searchable DB, not least because of commercial strategy of not disclosing which TMs they have chosen to record. George Kirikos:@Marie: But, domain names are public. By that logic, should the domain name database be private, lest their "commercial strategy" of not disclosing which matching domain names they've chosen not to register become public? George Kirikos:e.g. if Microsoft owns a TM for "cortana", but hasn't registered "cortana.TLD"....... George Kirikos:There's a bit of a disconnect --- TM holders support searching which other domain names a domain name registrant owns (i.e. they generally oppose WHOIS privacy), in order to demonstrate a "pattern" of cybersquatting, etc. Lori Schulman:Marie has reiterated my point. That is what I explained on the last call. David McAuley (RySG):Good idea Mary Susan Payne:very helpful thanks Mary Mary Wong:We will do our best Marie Pattullo:Many cases, but one: you register a new TM for a product, and at the same time record in the TM as, when you actually lauch the product, you know where/if to regsiter the DN. Only when the product is popualt would you get the baseline cybersquatter trying to register that TM as a DN. Marie Pattullo:Popular. Even. Sorry. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all, need to attend another call Marc Trachtenberg:@George: There is a dicsonnect becuase as many have pointed out, domain names are different than trademarks George Kirikos:That would be the middle of the night on the US East coast, if it's in the morning in Denmark. Mary Wong:That's right, Kathy Terri Agnew:Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 08 February 2017 at 18:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:Thanx Guys Vaibhav Aggarwal, NCSG:Ciao Marie Pattullo:Thanks all. David McAuley (RySG):Thanks Kathy, Mary, terri and all George Kirikos:Bye folks. David McAuley (RySG):Terri, that is
participants (1)
-
Terri Agnew