3.2.4 transcript with ICANN General Counsel confirming status
All, I am very happy that ICANN is transparent and transcribes is meetings, which is particularly essential in this fluid and complex environment. Since I was involved in the ICANN committee that developed the proposal for the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was called the IP Clearinghouse, I have known from the start that the concept of allowing other forms of IP in the Clearinghouse was always part of the concept, because there was always broad agreement that the ICANN-imposed Mandatory RPMs, were the ceiling and not the floor. The new gTLD Registry controls the allocation of all domain names within its TLD, and can therefore establish voluntary mechanisms, consistent with local laws, to protect consumers from confusion and harm from malicious actors. Since the Clearinghouse database is just an administrative tool to support the implementation of these mechanisms, both mandatory and voluntary, there was never a reason to exclude certain forms of IP in the Clearinghouse for the sole purpose of supporting the voluntary RPMS that a specific Registry may adopt. We have reached consensus on this point, in particular through the ancillary database concept, but have gotten snagged on the wording of particular provisions, including 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 Section 3.2.4 currently states: "Other marks that constitute intellectual property" - and this category: 3.2.4 - is NOT for the mandatory Sunrise or Claims period, but for voluntary registry-specific RPMs. I located the transcript from the ICANN meeting when the Applicant Guidebook was essentially completed; it had reach the near final stage. 3.2.4 was specifically discussing during this meeting; the confusion with the language was identified (and it was even predicted that it was going to cause confusion) and ICANN staff and General Counsel agreed that 3.2.4 extended to other forms of IP beyond trademarks. In other words, we have been confused on this clause simply because of imprecise drafting of this provision. Please see the transcript here: https://archive.icann.org/en/ meetings/singapore2011/bitcache/Trademark%20Clearinghouse%20Implementation%20Plan-vid=26005&disposition=attachment&op=download.txt I am quoting the relevant section: "J. Scott Evans: Another comment to Amy. Amy, I think that the guidebook's use of "other marks" confusing, and that needs to be changed to "other indicia," because we're already talking about marks in trademarks, and if you just make that one change, because I think the idea is there are other indicia other than trademarks that might be protected by the local registry, and we just need to make that clear. Because I think there's some confusion, well, if trademarks are here, what are other marks.
AMY STATHOS: Right. And with respect to the assignment issue, sometimes the database that has the assignment documents may be different than the actual database that has the actual registration, so looks like it's something that --
------- So 3.2.4. was always intended to allow other forms of IP to be recorded in the main TMCH database for implementation of voluntary Registry-specific voluntary RPMs. I hope this closes the debate on 3.2.4. and here is my proposed modification to bring clarity to its meaning: "3.2.4 Other Signs or Indicia that constitute intellectual property" Best regards, Claudio
Claudio, Thank you for the archive link. Under Rebecca’s and your proposal, including these latest thoughts on section 3.2.4, which section do you feel a mark like UNHCR would be entered in under the proposal/recommendation? On 10/16/19, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
I am very happy that ICANN is transparent and transcribes is meetings, which is particularly essential in this fluid and complex environment.
Since I was involved in the ICANN committee that developed the proposal for the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was called the IP Clearinghouse, I have known from the start that the concept of allowing other forms of IP in the Clearinghouse was always part of the concept, because there was always broad agreement that the ICANN-imposed Mandatory RPMs, were the ceiling and not the floor.
The new gTLD Registry controls the allocation of all domain names within its TLD, and can therefore establish voluntary mechanisms, consistent with local laws, to protect consumers from confusion and harm from malicious actors.
Since the Clearinghouse database is just an administrative tool to support the implementation of these mechanisms, both mandatory and voluntary, there was never a reason to exclude certain forms of IP in the Clearinghouse for the sole purpose of supporting the voluntary RPMS that a specific Registry may adopt.
We have reached consensus on this point, in particular through the ancillary database concept, but have gotten snagged on the wording of particular provisions, including 3.2.3 and 3.2.4
Section 3.2.4 currently states: "Other marks that constitute intellectual property" - and this category: 3.2.4 - is NOT for the mandatory Sunrise or Claims period, but for voluntary registry-specific RPMs.
I located the transcript from the ICANN meeting when the Applicant Guidebook was essentially completed; it had reach the near final stage.
3.2.4 was specifically discussing during this meeting; the confusion with the language was identified (and it was even predicted that it was going to cause confusion) and ICANN staff and General Counsel agreed that 3.2.4 extended to other forms of IP beyond trademarks. In other words, we have been confused on this clause simply because of imprecise drafting of this provision.
Please see the transcript here: https://archive.icann.org/en/ meetings/singapore2011/bitcache/Trademark%20Clearinghouse%20Implementation%20Plan-vid=26005&disposition=attachment&op=download.txt
I am quoting the relevant section:
"J. Scott Evans: Another comment to Amy. Amy, I think that the guidebook's use of "other marks" confusing, and that needs to be changed to "other indicia," because we're already talking about marks in trademarks, and if you just make that one change, because I think the idea is there are other indicia other than trademarks that might be protected by the local registry, and we just need to make that clear. Because I think there's some confusion, well, if trademarks are here, what are other marks.
AMY STATHOS: Right. And with respect to the assignment issue, sometimes the database that has the assignment documents may be different than the actual database that has the actual registration, so looks like it's something that --
-------
So 3.2.4. was always intended to allow other forms of IP to be recorded in the main TMCH database for implementation of voluntary Registry-specific voluntary RPMs. I hope this closes the debate on 3.2.4. and here is my proposed modification to bring clarity to its meaning:
"3.2.4 Other Signs or Indicia that constitute intellectual property"
Best regards, Claudio
My understanding was that this was closed per our discussion on the call. Can Chairs or staff provide guidance? Claudio’s message came in during the call for me. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
On Oct 16, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
Claudio, Thank you for the archive link. Under Rebecca’s and your proposal, including these latest thoughts on section 3.2.4, which section do you feel a mark like UNHCR would be entered in under the proposal/recommendation?
On 10/16/19, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote: All,
I am very happy that ICANN is transparent and transcribes is meetings, which is particularly essential in this fluid and complex environment.
Since I was involved in the ICANN committee that developed the proposal for the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was called the IP Clearinghouse, I have known from the start that the concept of allowing other forms of IP in the Clearinghouse was always part of the concept, because there was always broad agreement that the ICANN-imposed Mandatory RPMs, were the ceiling and not the floor.
The new gTLD Registry controls the allocation of all domain names within its TLD, and can therefore establish voluntary mechanisms, consistent with local laws, to protect consumers from confusion and harm from malicious actors.
Since the Clearinghouse database is just an administrative tool to support the implementation of these mechanisms, both mandatory and voluntary, there was never a reason to exclude certain forms of IP in the Clearinghouse for the sole purpose of supporting the voluntary RPMS that a specific Registry may adopt.
We have reached consensus on this point, in particular through the ancillary database concept, but have gotten snagged on the wording of particular provisions, including 3.2.3 and 3.2.4
Section 3.2.4 currently states: "Other marks that constitute intellectual property" - and this category: 3.2.4 - is NOT for the mandatory Sunrise or Claims period, but for voluntary registry-specific RPMs.
I located the transcript from the ICANN meeting when the Applicant Guidebook was essentially completed; it had reach the near final stage.
3.2.4 was specifically discussing during this meeting; the confusion with the language was identified (and it was even predicted that it was going to cause confusion) and ICANN staff and General Counsel agreed that 3.2.4 extended to other forms of IP beyond trademarks. In other words, we have been confused on this clause simply because of imprecise drafting of this provision.
Please see the transcript here: https://archive.icann.org/en/ meetings/singapore2011/bitcache/Trademark%20Clearinghouse%20Implementation%20Plan-vid=26005&disposition=attachment&op=download.txt
I am quoting the relevant section:
"J. Scott Evans: Another comment to Amy. Amy, I think that the guidebook's use of "other marks" confusing, and that needs to be changed to "other indicia," because we're already talking about marks in trademarks, and if you just make that one change, because I think the idea is there are other indicia other than trademarks that might be protected by the local registry, and we just need to make that clear. Because I think there's some confusion, well, if trademarks are here, what are other marks.
AMY STATHOS: Right. And with respect to the assignment issue, sometimes the database that has the assignment documents may be different than the actual database that has the actual registration, so looks like it's something that --
-------
So 3.2.4. was always intended to allow other forms of IP to be recorded in the main TMCH database for implementation of voluntary Registry-specific voluntary RPMs. I hope this closes the debate on 3.2.4. and here is my proposed modification to bring clarity to its meaning:
"3.2.4 Other Signs or Indicia that constitute intellectual property"
Best regards, Claudio
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Correct Rebecca. Per the WG agreement on the call today, this item is closed. Best, Julie On 10/16/19, 3:41 PM, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of Tushnet, Rebecca" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote: My understanding was that this was closed per our discussion on the call. Can Chairs or staff provide guidance? Claudio’s message came in during the call for me. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. > On Oct 16, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote: > > Claudio, Thank you for the archive link. Under Rebecca’s and your > proposal, including these latest thoughts on section 3.2.4, which > section do you feel a mark like UNHCR would be entered in under the > proposal/recommendation? > >> On 10/16/19, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote: >> All, >> >> I am very happy that ICANN is transparent and transcribes is meetings, >> which is particularly essential in this fluid and complex environment. >> >> Since I was involved in the ICANN committee that developed the proposal for >> the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was called the IP Clearinghouse, I have >> known from the start that the concept of allowing other forms of IP in the >> Clearinghouse was always part of the concept, because there was always >> broad agreement that the ICANN-imposed Mandatory RPMs, were the ceiling and >> not the floor. >> >> The new gTLD Registry controls the allocation of all domain names within >> its TLD, and can therefore establish voluntary mechanisms, consistent with >> local laws, to protect consumers from confusion and harm from malicious >> actors. >> >> Since the Clearinghouse database is just an administrative tool to support >> the implementation of these mechanisms, both mandatory and voluntary, there >> was never a reason to exclude certain forms of IP in the Clearinghouse for >> the sole purpose of supporting the voluntary RPMS that a specific Registry >> may adopt. >> >> We have reached consensus on this point, in particular through the >> ancillary database concept, but have gotten snagged on the wording of >> particular provisions, including 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 >> >> Section 3.2.4 currently states: "Other marks that constitute intellectual >> property" - and this category: 3.2.4 - is NOT for the mandatory Sunrise or >> Claims period, but for voluntary registry-specific RPMs. >> >> I located the transcript from the ICANN meeting when the Applicant >> Guidebook was essentially completed; it had reach the near final stage. >> >> 3.2.4 was specifically discussing during this meeting; the confusion with >> the language was identified (and it was even predicted that it was going to >> cause confusion) and ICANN staff and General Counsel agreed that 3.2.4 >> extended to other forms of IP beyond trademarks. In other words, we have >> been confused on this clause simply because of imprecise drafting of this >> provision. >> >> Please see the transcript here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_&d... >> meetings/singapore2011/bitcache/Trademark%20Clearinghouse%20Implementation%20Plan-vid=26005&disposition=attachment&op=download.txt >> >> I am quoting the relevant section: >> >> "J. Scott Evans: Another comment to Amy. Amy, I think that the guidebook's >> use of "other marks" confusing, and that needs to be changed to "other >> indicia," because we're already talking about marks in trademarks, and if >> you just make that >> one change, because I think the idea is there are other indicia other than >> trademarks that might be protected by the local registry, and we just need >> to make that clear. Because I think there's some confusion, well, if >> trademarks are here, what are other marks. >> >>>> AMY STATHOS: Right. And with respect to the assignment issue, sometimes >> the database that has the assignment documents may be different than the >> actual database that has the actual registration, so looks like it's >> something that -- >> >> ------- >> >> So 3.2.4. was always intended to allow other forms of IP to be recorded in >> the main TMCH database for implementation of voluntary Registry-specific >> voluntary RPMs. I hope this closes the debate on 3.2.4. and here is my >> proposed modification to bring clarity to its meaning: >> >> "3.2.4 Other Signs or Indicia that constitute intellectual property" >> >> Best regards, >> Claudio >> > _______________________________________________ > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list > GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I missed the first ten minutes of the call. It’s not clear to me what final language was settled upon, can someone clarify this? Thanks Best regards, Claudio On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Correct Rebecca. Per the WG agreement on the call today, this item is closed.
Best, Julie
On 10/16/19, 3:41 PM, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of Tushnet, Rebecca" < gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
My understanding was that this was closed per our discussion on the call. Can Chairs or staff provide guidance? Claudio’s message came in during the call for me.
Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
> On Oct 16, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote: > > Claudio, Thank you for the archive link. Under Rebecca’s and your > proposal, including these latest thoughts on section 3.2.4, which > section do you feel a mark like UNHCR would be entered in under the > proposal/recommendation? > >> On 10/16/19, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote: >> All, >> >> I am very happy that ICANN is transparent and transcribes is meetings, >> which is particularly essential in this fluid and complex environment. >> >> Since I was involved in the ICANN committee that developed the proposal for >> the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was called the IP Clearinghouse, I have >> known from the start that the concept of allowing other forms of IP in the >> Clearinghouse was always part of the concept, because there was always >> broad agreement that the ICANN-imposed Mandatory RPMs, were the ceiling and >> not the floor. >> >> The new gTLD Registry controls the allocation of all domain names within >> its TLD, and can therefore establish voluntary mechanisms, consistent with >> local laws, to protect consumers from confusion and harm from malicious >> actors. >> >> Since the Clearinghouse database is just an administrative tool to support >> the implementation of these mechanisms, both mandatory and voluntary, there >> was never a reason to exclude certain forms of IP in the Clearinghouse for >> the sole purpose of supporting the voluntary RPMS that a specific Registry >> may adopt. >> >> We have reached consensus on this point, in particular through the >> ancillary database concept, but have gotten snagged on the wording of >> particular provisions, including 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 >> >> Section 3.2.4 currently states: "Other marks that constitute intellectual >> property" - and this category: 3.2.4 - is NOT for the mandatory Sunrise or >> Claims period, but for voluntary registry-specific RPMs. >> >> I located the transcript from the ICANN meeting when the Applicant >> Guidebook was essentially completed; it had reach the near final stage. >> >> 3.2.4 was specifically discussing during this meeting; the confusion with >> the language was identified (and it was even predicted that it was going to >> cause confusion) and ICANN staff and General Counsel agreed that 3.2.4 >> extended to other forms of IP beyond trademarks. In other words, we have >> been confused on this clause simply because of imprecise drafting of this >> provision. >> >> Please see the transcript here: https://urldefense.proofpoint. com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0- clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=JxrlTJQ81REjQU12K21t83qqhIWNXo70RXqH8jzRNtQ&e= >> meetings/singapore2011/bitcache/Trademark%20Clearinghouse% 20Implementation%20Plan-vid=26005&disposition=attachment&op=download.txt >> >> I am quoting the relevant section: >> >> "J. Scott Evans: Another comment to Amy. Amy, I think that the guidebook's >> use of "other marks" confusing, and that needs to be changed to "other >> indicia," because we're already talking about marks in trademarks, and if >> you just make that >> one change, because I think the idea is there are other indicia other than >> trademarks that might be protected by the local registry, and we just need >> to make that clear. Because I think there's some confusion, well, if >> trademarks are here, what are other marks. >> >>>> AMY STATHOS: Right. And with respect to the assignment issue, sometimes >> the database that has the assignment documents may be different than the >> actual database that has the actual registration, so looks like it's >> something that -- >> >> ------- >> >> So 3.2.4. was always intended to allow other forms of IP to be recorded in >> the main TMCH database for implementation of voluntary Registry-specific >> voluntary RPMs. I hope this closes the debate on 3.2.4. and here is my >> proposed modification to bring clarity to its meaning: >> >> "3.2.4 Other Signs or Indicia that constitute intellectual property" >> >> Best regards, >> Claudio >> > _______________________________________________ > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list > GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense. proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0- clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=Z4lUybf_C0oJ0kGG8iO2ckOHuHQh0vbmanznAZ6t7mI&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense. proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0- clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=tvNM1mJDs6Z8kzHPkvGO5VT6P92qBIcnp3gNG2I3zzw&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense. proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0- clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=Z4lUybf_C0oJ0kGG8iO2ckOHuHQh0vbmanznAZ6t7mI&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense. proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0- clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=tvNM1mJDs6Z8kzHPkvGO5VT6P92qBIcnp3gNG2I3zzw&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Rebecca, last week you asked me for suggested wording to improve your proposal an I suggested an amendment with detailed reasoning, unfortunately I didn’t see a reply. It is not clear to me under which subsection a mark like UNHCR would enter the TMCH under your proposal please can you explain under which section it would be placed and the reasoning behind it, Many thanks, Paul On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:54 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
I missed the first ten minutes of the call. It’s not clear to me what final language was settled upon, can someone clarify this?
Thanks
Best regards, Claudio
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Correct Rebecca. Per the WG agreement on the call today, this item is closed.
Best, Julie
On 10/16/19, 3:41 PM, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of Tushnet, Rebecca" < gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
My understanding was that this was closed per our discussion on the call. Can Chairs or staff provide guidance? Claudio’s message came in during the call for me.
Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
> On Oct 16, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote: > > Claudio, Thank you for the archive link. Under Rebecca’s and your > proposal, including these latest thoughts on section 3.2.4, which > section do you feel a mark like UNHCR would be entered in under the > proposal/recommendation? > >> On 10/16/19, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote: >> All, >> >> I am very happy that ICANN is transparent and transcribes is meetings, >> which is particularly essential in this fluid and complex environment. >> >> Since I was involved in the ICANN committee that developed the proposal for >> the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was called the IP Clearinghouse, I have >> known from the start that the concept of allowing other forms of IP in the >> Clearinghouse was always part of the concept, because there was always >> broad agreement that the ICANN-imposed Mandatory RPMs, were the ceiling and >> not the floor. >> >> The new gTLD Registry controls the allocation of all domain names within >> its TLD, and can therefore establish voluntary mechanisms, consistent with >> local laws, to protect consumers from confusion and harm from malicious >> actors. >> >> Since the Clearinghouse database is just an administrative tool to support >> the implementation of these mechanisms, both mandatory and voluntary, there >> was never a reason to exclude certain forms of IP in the Clearinghouse for >> the sole purpose of supporting the voluntary RPMS that a specific Registry >> may adopt. >> >> We have reached consensus on this point, in particular through the >> ancillary database concept, but have gotten snagged on the wording of >> particular provisions, including 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 >> >> Section 3.2.4 currently states: "Other marks that constitute intellectual >> property" - and this category: 3.2.4 - is NOT for the mandatory Sunrise or >> Claims period, but for voluntary registry-specific RPMs. >> >> I located the transcript from the ICANN meeting when the Applicant >> Guidebook was essentially completed; it had reach the near final stage. >> >> 3.2.4 was specifically discussing during this meeting; the confusion with >> the language was identified (and it was even predicted that it was going to >> cause confusion) and ICANN staff and General Counsel agreed that 3.2.4 >> extended to other forms of IP beyond trademarks. In other words, we have >> been confused on this clause simply because of imprecise drafting of this >> provision. >> >> Please see the transcript here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_&d... >> meetings/singapore2011/bitcache/Trademark%20Clearinghouse%20Implementation%20Plan-vid=26005&disposition=attachment&op=download.txt >> >> I am quoting the relevant section: >> >> "J. Scott Evans: Another comment to Amy. Amy, I think that the guidebook's >> use of "other marks" confusing, and that needs to be changed to "other >> indicia," because we're already talking about marks in trademarks, and if >> you just make that >> one change, because I think the idea is there are other indicia other than >> trademarks that might be protected by the local registry, and we just need >> to make that clear. Because I think there's some confusion, well, if >> trademarks are here, what are other marks. >> >>>> AMY STATHOS: Right. And with respect to the assignment issue, sometimes >> the database that has the assignment documents may be different than the >> actual database that has the actual registration, so looks like it's >> something that -- >> >> ------- >> >> So 3.2.4. was always intended to allow other forms of IP to be recorded in >> the main TMCH database for implementation of voluntary Registry-specific >> voluntary RPMs. I hope this closes the debate on 3.2.4. and here is my >> proposed modification to bring clarity to its meaning: >> >> "3.2.4 Other Signs or Indicia that constitute intellectual property" >> >> Best regards, >> Claudio >> > _______________________________________________ > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list > GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service ( https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service ( https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Paul, It looks like we are including some of the open issues in the Initial Report, seeking public comment, and then concluding work on them after we review the public comments. That’s the sense I’m getting - Julie or Co-Chairs, please correct me if I am mistaken. On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
Rebecca, last week you asked me for suggested wording to improve your proposal an I suggested an amendment with detailed reasoning, unfortunately I didn’t see a reply.
It is not clear to me under which subsection a mark like UNHCR would enter the TMCH under your proposal please can you explain under which section it would be placed and the reasoning behind it,
Many thanks, Paul
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:54 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
I missed the first ten minutes of the call. It’s not clear to me what final language was settled upon, can someone clarify this?
Thanks
Best regards, Claudio
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Correct Rebecca. Per the WG agreement on the call today, this item is closed.
Best, Julie
On 10/16/19, 3:41 PM, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of Tushnet, Rebecca" < gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
My understanding was that this was closed per our discussion on the call. Can Chairs or staff provide guidance? Claudio’s message came in during the call for me.
Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
> On Oct 16, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote: > > Claudio, Thank you for the archive link. Under Rebecca’s and your > proposal, including these latest thoughts on section 3.2.4, which > section do you feel a mark like UNHCR would be entered in under the > proposal/recommendation? > >> On 10/16/19, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote: >> All, >> >> I am very happy that ICANN is transparent and transcribes is meetings, >> which is particularly essential in this fluid and complex environment. >> >> Since I was involved in the ICANN committee that developed the proposal for >> the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was called the IP Clearinghouse, I have >> known from the start that the concept of allowing other forms of IP in the >> Clearinghouse was always part of the concept, because there was always >> broad agreement that the ICANN-imposed Mandatory RPMs, were the ceiling and >> not the floor. >> >> The new gTLD Registry controls the allocation of all domain names within >> its TLD, and can therefore establish voluntary mechanisms, consistent with >> local laws, to protect consumers from confusion and harm from malicious >> actors. >> >> Since the Clearinghouse database is just an administrative tool to support >> the implementation of these mechanisms, both mandatory and voluntary, there >> was never a reason to exclude certain forms of IP in the Clearinghouse for >> the sole purpose of supporting the voluntary RPMS that a specific Registry >> may adopt. >> >> We have reached consensus on this point, in particular through the >> ancillary database concept, but have gotten snagged on the wording of >> particular provisions, including 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 >> >> Section 3.2.4 currently states: "Other marks that constitute intellectual >> property" - and this category: 3.2.4 - is NOT for the mandatory Sunrise or >> Claims period, but for voluntary registry-specific RPMs. >> >> I located the transcript from the ICANN meeting when the Applicant >> Guidebook was essentially completed; it had reach the near final stage. >> >> 3.2.4 was specifically discussing during this meeting; the confusion with >> the language was identified (and it was even predicted that it was going to >> cause confusion) and ICANN staff and General Counsel agreed that 3.2.4 >> extended to other forms of IP beyond trademarks. In other words, we have >> been confused on this clause simply because of imprecise drafting of this >> provision. >> >> Please see the transcript here: https://urldefense.proofpoint. com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0- clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=JxrlTJQ81REjQU12K21t83qqhIWNXo70RXqH8jzRNtQ&e= >> meetings/singapore2011/bitcache/Trademark%20Clearinghouse% 20Implementation%20Plan-vid=26005&disposition=attachment&op=download.txt >> >> I am quoting the relevant section: >> >> "J. Scott Evans: Another comment to Amy. Amy, I think that the guidebook's >> use of "other marks" confusing, and that needs to be changed to "other >> indicia," because we're already talking about marks in trademarks, and if >> you just make that >> one change, because I think the idea is there are other indicia other than >> trademarks that might be protected by the local registry, and we just need >> to make that clear. Because I think there's some confusion, well, if >> trademarks are here, what are other marks. >> >>>> AMY STATHOS: Right. And with respect to the assignment issue, sometimes >> the database that has the assignment documents may be different than the >> actual database that has the actual registration, so looks like it's >> something that -- >> >> ------- >> >> So 3.2.4. was always intended to allow other forms of IP to be recorded in >> the main TMCH database for implementation of voluntary Registry-specific >> voluntary RPMs. I hope this closes the debate on 3.2.4. and here is my >> proposed modification to bring clarity to its meaning: >> >> "3.2.4 Other Signs or Indicia that constitute intellectual property" >> >> Best regards, >> Claudio >> > _______________________________________________ > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list > GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense. proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_ policy&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m= dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0-clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=Z4lUybf_ C0oJ0kGG8iO2ckOHuHQh0vbmanznAZ6t7mI&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m= dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0-clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s= tvNM1mJDs6Z8kzHPkvGO5VT6P92qBIcnp3gNG2I3zzw&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense. proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_ policy&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m= dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0-clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=Z4lUybf_ C0oJ0kGG8iO2ckOHuHQh0vbmanznAZ6t7mI&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m= dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0-clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s= tvNM1mJDs6Z8kzHPkvGO5VT6P92qBIcnp3gNG2I3zzw&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
It was my understanding, as I expressed on the call, that unanimity was not required for a consensus proposal. I understand Paul’s position and have responded on list in detail—to summarize, GIs often get notified to TM offices through a similar process to that described for IGOs, so language that lets the latter in for Notice and Claims will also let the former in unless there is a “notwithstanding” clause in the definition, which I don’t much like. But I thought we had decided to move forward. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. On Oct 16, 2019, at 5:21 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote: Paul, It looks like we are including some of the open issues in the Initial Report, seeking public comment, and then concluding work on them after we review the public comments. That’s the sense I’m getting - Julie or Co-Chairs, please correct me if I am mistaken. On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>> wrote: Rebecca, last week you asked me for suggested wording to improve your proposal an I suggested an amendment with detailed reasoning, unfortunately I didn’t see a reply. It is not clear to me under which subsection a mark like UNHCR would enter the TMCH under your proposal please can you explain under which section it would be placed and the reasoning behind it, Many thanks, Paul On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:54 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote: I missed the first ten minutes of the call. It’s not clear to me what final language was settled upon, can someone clarify this? Thanks Best regards, Claudio On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Correct Rebecca. Per the WG agreement on the call today, this item is closed. Best, Julie On 10/16/19, 3:41 PM, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of Tushnet, Rebecca" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of rtushnet@law.harvard.edu<mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu>> wrote: My understanding was that this was closed per our discussion on the call. Can Chairs or staff provide guidance? Claudio’s message came in during the call for me. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. > On Oct 16, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Claudio, Thank you for the archive link. Under Rebecca’s and your > proposal, including these latest thoughts on section 3.2.4, which > section do you feel a mark like UNHCR would be entered in under the > proposal/recommendation? > >> On 10/16/19, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote: >> All, >> >> I am very happy that ICANN is transparent and transcribes is meetings, >> which is particularly essential in this fluid and complex environment. >> >> Since I was involved in the ICANN committee that developed the proposal for >> the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was called the IP Clearinghouse, I have >> known from the start that the concept of allowing other forms of IP in the >> Clearinghouse was always part of the concept, because there was always >> broad agreement that the ICANN-imposed Mandatory RPMs, were the ceiling and >> not the floor. >> >> The new gTLD Registry controls the allocation of all domain names within >> its TLD, and can therefore establish voluntary mechanisms, consistent with >> local laws, to protect consumers from confusion and harm from malicious >> actors. >> >> Since the Clearinghouse database is just an administrative tool to support >> the implementation of these mechanisms, both mandatory and voluntary, there >> was never a reason to exclude certain forms of IP in the Clearinghouse for >> the sole purpose of supporting the voluntary RPMS that a specific Registry >> may adopt. >> >> We have reached consensus on this point, in particular through the >> ancillary database concept, but have gotten snagged on the wording of >> particular provisions, including 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 >> >> Section 3.2.4 currently states: "Other marks that constitute intellectual >> property" - and this category: 3.2.4 - is NOT for the mandatory Sunrise or >> Claims period, but for voluntary registry-specific RPMs. >> >> I located the transcript from the ICANN meeting when the Applicant >> Guidebook was essentially completed; it had reach the near final stage. >> >> 3.2.4 was specifically discussing during this meeting; the confusion with >> the language was identified (and it was even predicted that it was going to >> cause confusion) and ICANN staff and General Counsel agreed that 3.2.4 >> extended to other forms of IP beyond trademarks. In other words, we have >> been confused on this clause simply because of imprecise drafting of this >> provision. >> >> Please see the transcript here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_&d... >> meetings/singapore2011/bitcache/Trademark%20Clearinghouse%20Implementation%20Plan-vid=26005&disposition=attachment&op=download.txt >> >> I am quoting the relevant section: >> >> "J. Scott Evans: Another comment to Amy. Amy, I think that the guidebook's >> use of "other marks" confusing, and that needs to be changed to "other >> indicia," because we're already talking about marks in trademarks, and if >> you just make that >> one change, because I think the idea is there are other indicia other than >> trademarks that might be protected by the local registry, and we just need >> to make that clear. Because I think there's some confusion, well, if >> trademarks are here, what are other marks. >> >>>> AMY STATHOS: Right. And with respect to the assignment issue, sometimes >> the database that has the assignment documents may be different than the >> actual database that has the actual registration, so looks like it's >> something that -- >> >> ------- >> >> So 3.2.4. was always intended to allow other forms of IP to be recorded in >> the main TMCH database for implementation of voluntary Registry-specific >> voluntary RPMs. I hope this closes the debate on 3.2.4. and here is my >> proposed modification to bring clarity to its meaning: >> >> "3.2.4 Other Signs or Indicia that constitute intellectual property" >> >> Best regards, >> Claudio >> > _______________________________________________ > 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=kLiVxK7D3nUaAwSFquKeubRBM0XFCVZkcWPsS2XJVWw&s=PETaBIdm9ICDOEuorpEwE7fJMbfnnfWpOAVvaUrKcro&e=> > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=kLiVxK7D3nUaAwSFquKeubRBM0XFCVZkcWPsS2XJVWw&s=PETaBIdm9ICDOEuorpEwE7fJMbfnnfWpOAVvaUrKcro&e=> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=kLiVxK7D3nUaAwSFquKeubRBM0XFCVZkcWPsS2XJVWw&s=PETaBIdm9ICDOEuorpEwE7fJMbfnnfWpOAVvaUrKcro&e=> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=kLiVxK7D3nUaAwSFquKeubRBM0XFCVZkcWPsS2XJVWw&s=vWu_-BTDKgy0SyCxISgPELoXyzOCnkbqLNucvVEoR-g&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=kLiVxK7D3nUaAwSFquKeubRBM0XFCVZkcWPsS2XJVWw&s=LlRgyBORXPl-Tn96uR2IS4Bd41a_kXE9YMHNebnQVs8&e=>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Rebecca, you asked for additional wording which I provided a couple of days later http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-October/003981.html *“… With the above in mind Rebecca, would the following additional subsection be acceptable to your proposal? 3.2.3 (b)* Word marks of treaty organizations protected under 6ter of the Paris Convention and notified to a national trademark office [*Again section numbering and ordering can be tidied later but the new subsection should be one that flows to 7.1 & 7.2 and the RPMs.]” * Unfortunately I didn’t see a reply. On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:51 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
It was my understanding, as I expressed on the call, that unanimity was not required for a consensus proposal. I understand Paul’s position and have responded on list in detail—to summarize, GIs often get notified to TM offices through a similar process to that described for IGOs, so language that lets the latter in for Notice and Claims will also let the former in unless there is a “notwithstanding” clause in the definition, which I don’t much like. But I thought we had decided to move forward.
Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
On Oct 16, 2019, at 5:21 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul,
It looks like we are including some of the open issues in the Initial Report, seeking public comment, and then concluding work on them after we review the public comments.
That’s the sense I’m getting - Julie or Co-Chairs, please correct me if I am mistaken.
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
Rebecca, last week you asked me for suggested wording to improve your proposal an I suggested an amendment with detailed reasoning, unfortunately I didn’t see a reply.
It is not clear to me under which subsection a mark like UNHCR would enter the TMCH under your proposal please can you explain under which section it would be placed and the reasoning behind it,
Many thanks, Paul
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:54 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
I missed the first ten minutes of the call. It’s not clear to me what final language was settled upon, can someone clarify this?
Thanks
Best regards, Claudio
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Correct Rebecca. Per the WG agreement on the call today, this item is closed.
Best, Julie
On 10/16/19, 3:41 PM, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of Tushnet, Rebecca" < gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
My understanding was that this was closed per our discussion on the call. Can Chairs or staff provide guidance? Claudio’s message came in during the call for me.
Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
> On Oct 16, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Paul Tattersfield < gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote: > > Claudio, Thank you for the archive link. Under Rebecca’s and your > proposal, including these latest thoughts on section 3.2.4, which > section do you feel a mark like UNHCR would be entered in under the > proposal/recommendation? > >> On 10/16/19, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote: >> All, >> >> I am very happy that ICANN is transparent and transcribes is meetings, >> which is particularly essential in this fluid and complex environment. >> >> Since I was involved in the ICANN committee that developed the proposal for >> the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was called the IP Clearinghouse, I have >> known from the start that the concept of allowing other forms of IP in the >> Clearinghouse was always part of the concept, because there was always >> broad agreement that the ICANN-imposed Mandatory RPMs, were the ceiling and >> not the floor. >> >> The new gTLD Registry controls the allocation of all domain names within >> its TLD, and can therefore establish voluntary mechanisms, consistent with >> local laws, to protect consumers from confusion and harm from malicious >> actors. >> >> Since the Clearinghouse database is just an administrative tool to support >> the implementation of these mechanisms, both mandatory and voluntary, there >> was never a reason to exclude certain forms of IP in the Clearinghouse for >> the sole purpose of supporting the voluntary RPMS that a specific Registry >> may adopt. >> >> We have reached consensus on this point, in particular through the >> ancillary database concept, but have gotten snagged on the wording of >> particular provisions, including 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 >> >> Section 3.2.4 currently states: "Other marks that constitute intellectual >> property" - and this category: 3.2.4 - is NOT for the mandatory Sunrise or >> Claims period, but for voluntary registry-specific RPMs. >> >> I located the transcript from the ICANN meeting when the Applicant >> Guidebook was essentially completed; it had reach the near final stage. >> >> 3.2.4 was specifically discussing during this meeting; the confusion with >> the language was identified (and it was even predicted that it was going to >> cause confusion) and ICANN staff and General Counsel agreed that 3.2.4 >> extended to other forms of IP beyond trademarks. In other words, we have >> been confused on this clause simply because of imprecise drafting of this >> provision. >> >> Please see the transcript here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_&d... >> meetings/singapore2011/bitcache/Trademark%20Clearinghouse%20Implementation%20Plan-vid=26005&disposition=attachment&op=download.txt >> >> I am quoting the relevant section: >> >> "J. Scott Evans: Another comment to Amy. Amy, I think that the guidebook's >> use of "other marks" confusing, and that needs to be changed to "other >> indicia," because we're already talking about marks in trademarks, and if >> you just make that >> one change, because I think the idea is there are other indicia other than >> trademarks that might be protected by the local registry, and we just need >> to make that clear. Because I think there's some confusion, well, if >> trademarks are here, what are other marks. >> >>>> AMY STATHOS: Right. And with respect to the assignment issue, sometimes >> the database that has the assignment documents may be different than the >> actual database that has the actual registration, so looks like it's >> something that -- >> >> ------- >> >> So 3.2.4. was always intended to allow other forms of IP to be recorded in >> the main TMCH database for implementation of voluntary Registry-specific >> voluntary RPMs. I hope this closes the debate on 3.2.4. and here is my >> proposed modification to bring clarity to its meaning: >> >> "3.2.4 Other Signs or Indicia that constitute intellectual property" >> >> Best regards, >> Claudio >> > _______________________________________________ > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list > GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service ( https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service ( https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I’m not sure what I missed and I’ll listen to the recording; as per ICANN practice, agreements aren’t just reached by who is on particular call - it needs to include input from members on the list who missed the call. I’m fine with parking this until after initial report is published, but we didn’t reconcile some open questions and they require further work at some point. On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
I missed the first ten minutes of the call. It’s not clear to me what final language was settled upon, can someone clarify this?
Thanks
Best regards, Claudio
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Correct Rebecca. Per the WG agreement on the call today, this item is closed.
Best, Julie
On 10/16/19, 3:41 PM, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of Tushnet, Rebecca" < gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
My understanding was that this was closed per our discussion on the call. Can Chairs or staff provide guidance? Claudio’s message came in during the call for me.
Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
> On Oct 16, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote: > > Claudio, Thank you for the archive link. Under Rebecca’s and your > proposal, including these latest thoughts on section 3.2.4, which > section do you feel a mark like UNHCR would be entered in under the > proposal/recommendation? > >> On 10/16/19, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote: >> All, >> >> I am very happy that ICANN is transparent and transcribes is meetings, >> which is particularly essential in this fluid and complex environment. >> >> Since I was involved in the ICANN committee that developed the proposal for >> the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was called the IP Clearinghouse, I have >> known from the start that the concept of allowing other forms of IP in the >> Clearinghouse was always part of the concept, because there was always >> broad agreement that the ICANN-imposed Mandatory RPMs, were the ceiling and >> not the floor. >> >> The new gTLD Registry controls the allocation of all domain names within >> its TLD, and can therefore establish voluntary mechanisms, consistent with >> local laws, to protect consumers from confusion and harm from malicious >> actors. >> >> Since the Clearinghouse database is just an administrative tool to support >> the implementation of these mechanisms, both mandatory and voluntary, there >> was never a reason to exclude certain forms of IP in the Clearinghouse for >> the sole purpose of supporting the voluntary RPMS that a specific Registry >> may adopt. >> >> We have reached consensus on this point, in particular through the >> ancillary database concept, but have gotten snagged on the wording of >> particular provisions, including 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 >> >> Section 3.2.4 currently states: "Other marks that constitute intellectual >> property" - and this category: 3.2.4 - is NOT for the mandatory Sunrise or >> Claims period, but for voluntary registry-specific RPMs. >> >> I located the transcript from the ICANN meeting when the Applicant >> Guidebook was essentially completed; it had reach the near final stage. >> >> 3.2.4 was specifically discussing during this meeting; the confusion with >> the language was identified (and it was even predicted that it was going to >> cause confusion) and ICANN staff and General Counsel agreed that 3.2.4 >> extended to other forms of IP beyond trademarks. In other words, we have >> been confused on this clause simply because of imprecise drafting of this >> provision. >> >> Please see the transcript here: https://urldefense.proofpoint. com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1 u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsd ovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0-clVWIm- GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=JxrlTJQ81REjQU12K21t83qqhIWNXo70RXqH8jzRNtQ&e= >> meetings/singapore2011/bitcache/Trademark%20Clearinghouse%20 Implementation%20Plan-vid=26005&disposition=attachment&op=download.txt >> >> I am quoting the relevant section: >> >> "J. Scott Evans: Another comment to Amy. Amy, I think that the guidebook's >> use of "other marks" confusing, and that needs to be changed to "other >> indicia," because we're already talking about marks in trademarks, and if >> you just make that >> one change, because I think the idea is there are other indicia other than >> trademarks that might be protected by the local registry, and we just need >> to make that clear. Because I think there's some confusion, well, if >> trademarks are here, what are other marks. >> >>>> AMY STATHOS: Right. And with respect to the assignment issue, sometimes >> the database that has the assignment documents may be different than the >> actual database that has the actual registration, so looks like it's >> something that -- >> >> ------- >> >> So 3.2.4. was always intended to allow other forms of IP to be recorded in >> the main TMCH database for implementation of voluntary Registry-specific >> voluntary RPMs. I hope this closes the debate on 3.2.4. and here is my >> proposed modification to bring clarity to its meaning: >> >> "3.2.4 Other Signs or Indicia that constitute intellectual property" >> >> Best regards, >> Claudio >> > _______________________________________________ > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list > GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint .com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d= DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r= adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zF bvOyLacmM0-clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=Z4lUybf_C0oJ0kGG8iO2ckOHuHQh 0vbmanznAZ6t7mI&e= ) and the website Terms of Service ( https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSV zgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo 5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0-clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0& s=tvNM1mJDs6Z8kzHPkvGO5VT6P92qBIcnp3gNG2I3zzw&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint .com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d= DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r= adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zF bvOyLacmM0-clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=Z4lUybf_C0oJ0kGG8iO2ckOHuHQh 0vbmanznAZ6t7mI&e= ) and the website Terms of Service ( https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSV zgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo 5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0-clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0& s=tvNM1mJDs6Z8kzHPkvGO5VT6P92qBIcnp3gNG2I3zzw&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Claudio, It was Rebecca’s revised proposal (submitted on 10 October<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/TMCH+Proposals?preview=/109...>) as worked out with you and others, and then also the discussion about moving the language in 3.2.4 elsewhere in the AGB. However, in capturing the exact language on the second item staff will first need to review the transcript, recording, and chat room at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-10+Review+of+all+Ri.... Kind regards, Julie From: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 3:54 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu>, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com>, "J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: 3.2.4 transcript with ICANN General Counsel confirming status I missed the first ten minutes of the call. It’s not clear to me what final language was settled upon, can someone clarify this? Thanks Best regards, Claudio On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Correct Rebecca. Per the WG agreement on the call today, this item is closed. Best, Julie On 10/16/19, 3:41 PM, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of Tushnet, Rebecca" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of rtushnet@law.harvard.edu<mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu>> wrote: My understanding was that this was closed per our discussion on the call. Can Chairs or staff provide guidance? Claudio’s message came in during the call for me. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. > On Oct 16, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Claudio, Thank you for the archive link. Under Rebecca’s and your > proposal, including these latest thoughts on section 3.2.4, which > section do you feel a mark like UNHCR would be entered in under the > proposal/recommendation? > >> On 10/16/19, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote: >> All, >> >> I am very happy that ICANN is transparent and transcribes is meetings, >> which is particularly essential in this fluid and complex environment. >> >> Since I was involved in the ICANN committee that developed the proposal for >> the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was called the IP Clearinghouse, I have >> known from the start that the concept of allowing other forms of IP in the >> Clearinghouse was always part of the concept, because there was always >> broad agreement that the ICANN-imposed Mandatory RPMs, were the ceiling and >> not the floor. >> >> The new gTLD Registry controls the allocation of all domain names within >> its TLD, and can therefore establish voluntary mechanisms, consistent with >> local laws, to protect consumers from confusion and harm from malicious >> actors. >> >> Since the Clearinghouse database is just an administrative tool to support >> the implementation of these mechanisms, both mandatory and voluntary, there >> was never a reason to exclude certain forms of IP in the Clearinghouse for >> the sole purpose of supporting the voluntary RPMS that a specific Registry >> may adopt. >> >> We have reached consensus on this point, in particular through the >> ancillary database concept, but have gotten snagged on the wording of >> particular provisions, including 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 >> >> Section 3.2.4 currently states: "Other marks that constitute intellectual >> property" - and this category: 3.2.4 - is NOT for the mandatory Sunrise or >> Claims period, but for voluntary registry-specific RPMs. >> >> I located the transcript from the ICANN meeting when the Applicant >> Guidebook was essentially completed; it had reach the near final stage. >> >> 3.2.4 was specifically discussing during this meeting; the confusion with >> the language was identified (and it was even predicted that it was going to >> cause confusion) and ICANN staff and General Counsel agreed that 3.2.4 >> extended to other forms of IP beyond trademarks. In other words, we have >> been confused on this clause simply because of imprecise drafting of this >> provision. >> >> Please see the transcript here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_&d... >> meetings/singapore2011/bitcache/Trademark%20Clearinghouse%20Implementation%20Plan-vid=26005&disposition=attachment&op=download.txt >> >> I am quoting the relevant section: >> >> "J. Scott Evans: Another comment to Amy. Amy, I think that the guidebook's >> use of "other marks" confusing, and that needs to be changed to "other >> indicia," because we're already talking about marks in trademarks, and if >> you just make that >> one change, because I think the idea is there are other indicia other than >> trademarks that might be protected by the local registry, and we just need >> to make that clear. Because I think there's some confusion, well, if >> trademarks are here, what are other marks. >> >>>> AMY STATHOS: Right. And with respect to the assignment issue, sometimes >> the database that has the assignment documents may be different than the >> actual database that has the actual registration, so looks like it's >> something that -- >> >> ------- >> >> So 3.2.4. was always intended to allow other forms of IP to be recorded in >> the main TMCH database for implementation of voluntary Registry-specific >> voluntary RPMs. I hope this closes the debate on 3.2.4. and here is my >> proposed modification to bring clarity to its meaning: >> >> "3.2.4 Other Signs or Indicia that constitute intellectual property" >> >> Best regards, >> Claudio >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Julie, Rebecca and I submitted separate proposals, because they were areas where we disagreed. I tried to extend the small group process so we could produce a consensus proposal, but that didn’t happen. So there are two separate proposals. My proposal will need to be included in the Initial Report, since there are numerous members in the WG which support my proposal and I was not on the call to express this point. Best, Claudio On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Claudio,
It was Rebecca’s revised proposal (submitted on 10 October <https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/TMCH+Proposals?preview=/109...>) as worked out with you and others, and then also the discussion about moving the language in 3.2.4 elsewhere in the AGB. However, in capturing the exact language on the second item staff will first need to review the transcript, recording, and chat room at: https://community.icann.org/ display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-10-10+Review+of+all+Rights+ Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG.
Kind regards,
Julie
*From: *claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 3:54 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *"Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu>, Paul Tattersfield < gpmgroup@gmail.com>, "J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg" < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: 3.2.4 transcript with ICANN General Counsel confirming status
I missed the first ten minutes of the call. It’s not clear to me what final language was settled upon, can someone clarify this?
Thanks
Best regards,
Claudio
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Correct Rebecca. Per the WG agreement on the call today, this item is closed.
Best, Julie
On 10/16/19, 3:41 PM, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of Tushnet, Rebecca" < gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
My understanding was that this was closed per our discussion on the call. Can Chairs or staff provide guidance? Claudio’s message came in during the call for me.
Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
> On Oct 16, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote: > > Claudio, Thank you for the archive link. Under Rebecca’s and your > proposal, including these latest thoughts on section 3.2.4, which > section do you feel a mark like UNHCR would be entered in under the > proposal/recommendation? > >> On 10/16/19, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote: >> All, >> >> I am very happy that ICANN is transparent and transcribes is meetings, >> which is particularly essential in this fluid and complex environment. >> >> Since I was involved in the ICANN committee that developed the proposal for >> the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was called the IP Clearinghouse, I have >> known from the start that the concept of allowing other forms of IP in the >> Clearinghouse was always part of the concept, because there was always >> broad agreement that the ICANN-imposed Mandatory RPMs, were the ceiling and >> not the floor. >> >> The new gTLD Registry controls the allocation of all domain names within >> its TLD, and can therefore establish voluntary mechanisms, consistent with >> local laws, to protect consumers from confusion and harm from malicious >> actors. >> >> Since the Clearinghouse database is just an administrative tool to support >> the implementation of these mechanisms, both mandatory and voluntary, there >> was never a reason to exclude certain forms of IP in the Clearinghouse for >> the sole purpose of supporting the voluntary RPMS that a specific Registry >> may adopt. >> >> We have reached consensus on this point, in particular through the >> ancillary database concept, but have gotten snagged on the wording of >> particular provisions, including 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 >> >> Section 3.2.4 currently states: "Other marks that constitute intellectual >> property" - and this category: 3.2.4 - is NOT for the mandatory Sunrise or >> Claims period, but for voluntary registry-specific RPMs. >> >> I located the transcript from the ICANN meeting when the Applicant >> Guidebook was essentially completed; it had reach the near final stage. >> >> 3.2.4 was specifically discussing during this meeting; the confusion with >> the language was identified (and it was even predicted that it was going to >> cause confusion) and ICANN staff and General Counsel agreed that 3.2.4 >> extended to other forms of IP beyond trademarks. In other words, we have >> been confused on this clause simply because of imprecise drafting of this >> provision. >> >> Please see the transcript here: https://urldefense.proofpoint. com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0- clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=JxrlTJQ81REjQU12K21t83qqhIWNXo70RXqH8jzRNtQ&e= >> meetings/singapore2011/bitcache/Trademark%20Clearinghouse% 20Implementation%20Plan-vid=26005&disposition=attachment&op=download.txt >> >> I am quoting the relevant section: >> >> "J. Scott Evans: Another comment to Amy. Amy, I think that the guidebook's >> use of "other marks" confusing, and that needs to be changed to "other >> indicia," because we're already talking about marks in trademarks, and if >> you just make that >> one change, because I think the idea is there are other indicia other than >> trademarks that might be protected by the local registry, and we just need >> to make that clear. Because I think there's some confusion, well, if >> trademarks are here, what are other marks. >> >>>> AMY STATHOS: Right. And with respect to the assignment issue, sometimes >> the database that has the assignment documents may be different than the >> actual database that has the actual registration, so looks like it's >> something that -- >> >> ------- >> >> So 3.2.4. was always intended to allow other forms of IP to be recorded in >> the main TMCH database for implementation of voluntary Registry-specific >> voluntary RPMs. I hope this closes the debate on 3.2.4. and here is my >> proposed modification to bring clarity to its meaning: >> >> "3.2.4 Other Signs or Indicia that constitute intellectual property" >> >> Best regards, >> Claudio >> > _______________________________________________ > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list > GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense. proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0- clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=Z4lUybf_C0oJ0kGG8iO2ckOHuHQh0vbmanznAZ6t7mI&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense. proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0- clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=tvNM1mJDs6Z8kzHPkvGO5VT6P92qBIcnp3gNG2I3zzw&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense. proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0- clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=Z4lUybf_C0oJ0kGG8iO2ckOHuHQh0vbmanznAZ6t7mI&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense. proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0- clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=tvNM1mJDs6Z8kzHPkvGO5VT6P92qBIcnp3gNG2I3zzw&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I’m not sure what I missed and I’ll listen to the recording; as per ICANN practice, agreements aren’t just reached by who is on particular call - it needs to include input from members on the list who missed the call. I’m fine with parking this until after initial report is published, but we didn’t reconcile open questions and they require further work at some point. On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
I missed the first ten minutes of the call. It’s not clear to me what final language was settled upon, can someone clarify this?
Thanks
Best regards, Claudio
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Correct Rebecca. Per the WG agreement on the call today, this item is closed.
Best, Julie
On 10/16/19, 3:41 PM, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of Tushnet, Rebecca" < gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
My understanding was that this was closed per our discussion on the call. Can Chairs or staff provide guidance? Claudio’s message came in during the call for me.
Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
> On Oct 16, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote: > > Claudio, Thank you for the archive link. Under Rebecca’s and your > proposal, including these latest thoughts on section 3.2.4, which > section do you feel a mark like UNHCR would be entered in under the > proposal/recommendation? > >> On 10/16/19, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote: >> All, >> >> I am very happy that ICANN is transparent and transcribes is meetings, >> which is particularly essential in this fluid and complex environment. >> >> Since I was involved in the ICANN committee that developed the proposal for >> the Trademark Clearinghouse, which was called the IP Clearinghouse, I have >> known from the start that the concept of allowing other forms of IP in the >> Clearinghouse was always part of the concept, because there was always >> broad agreement that the ICANN-imposed Mandatory RPMs, were the ceiling and >> not the floor. >> >> The new gTLD Registry controls the allocation of all domain names within >> its TLD, and can therefore establish voluntary mechanisms, consistent with >> local laws, to protect consumers from confusion and harm from malicious >> actors. >> >> Since the Clearinghouse database is just an administrative tool to support >> the implementation of these mechanisms, both mandatory and voluntary, there >> was never a reason to exclude certain forms of IP in the Clearinghouse for >> the sole purpose of supporting the voluntary RPMS that a specific Registry >> may adopt. >> >> We have reached consensus on this point, in particular through the >> ancillary database concept, but have gotten snagged on the wording of >> particular provisions, including 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 >> >> Section 3.2.4 currently states: "Other marks that constitute intellectual >> property" - and this category: 3.2.4 - is NOT for the mandatory Sunrise or >> Claims period, but for voluntary registry-specific RPMs. >> >> I located the transcript from the ICANN meeting when the Applicant >> Guidebook was essentially completed; it had reach the near final stage. >> >> 3.2.4 was specifically discussing during this meeting; the confusion with >> the language was identified (and it was even predicted that it was going to >> cause confusion) and ICANN staff and General Counsel agreed that 3.2.4 >> extended to other forms of IP beyond trademarks. In other words, we have >> been confused on this clause simply because of imprecise drafting of this >> provision. >> >> Please see the transcript here: https://urldefense.proofpoint. com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1 u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsd ovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0-clVWIm- GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=JxrlTJQ81REjQU12K21t83qqhIWNXo70RXqH8jzRNtQ&e= >> meetings/singapore2011/bitcache/Trademark%20Clearinghouse%20 Implementation%20Plan-vid=26005&disposition=attachment&op=download.txt >> >> I am quoting the relevant section: >> >> "J. Scott Evans: Another comment to Amy. Amy, I think that the guidebook's >> use of "other marks" confusing, and that needs to be changed to "other >> indicia," because we're already talking about marks in trademarks, and if >> you just make that >> one change, because I think the idea is there are other indicia other than >> trademarks that might be protected by the local registry, and we just need >> to make that clear. Because I think there's some confusion, well, if >> trademarks are here, what are other marks. >> >>>> AMY STATHOS: Right. And with respect to the assignment issue, sometimes >> the database that has the assignment documents may be different than the >> actual database that has the actual registration, so looks like it's >> something that -- >> >> ------- >> >> So 3.2.4. was always intended to allow other forms of IP to be recorded in >> the main TMCH database for implementation of voluntary Registry-specific >> voluntary RPMs. I hope this closes the debate on 3.2.4. and here is my >> proposed modification to bring clarity to its meaning: >> >> "3.2.4 Other Signs or Indicia that constitute intellectual property" >> >> Best regards, >> Claudio >> > _______________________________________________ > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list > GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint .com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwIGa Q&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0 -clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=Z4lUybf_C0oJ0kGG8iO2ckOHuHQh0vbmanznAZ6t7mI&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint .com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ& c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0 -clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=tvNM1mJDs6Z8kzHPkvGO5VT6P92qBIcnp3gNG2I3zzw&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint .com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwIGa Q&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0 -clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=Z4lUybf_C0oJ0kGG8iO2ckOHuHQh0vbmanznAZ6t7mI&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint .com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ& c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_ lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dMQQGBWfWo48zFbvOyLacmM0 -clVWIm-GBUZA-g1PQ0&s=tvNM1mJDs6Z8kzHPkvGO5VT6P92qBIcnp3gNG2I3zzw&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (4)
-
claudio di gangi -
Julie Hedlund -
Paul Tattersfield -
Tushnet, Rebecca