Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!)
Dear all, The following note contains an initial section for Members only, followed by a section intended for both Members and Observers, containing notes of the last Working Group call. I. For Members only: Please note the upcoming WG call on Wednesday 8 June will not be a rotating call; in other words, the 8 June WG meeting will take place at the regular time of 1600 UTC. However, the next call – on Wednesday 15 June – will rotate to 2100 UTC. Please look out for updated calendar invitations from the GNSO Secretariat. This change is being made to partially accommodate the biweekly Registries Stakeholder Group calls. In order to fully accommodate the Registries SG calls, however, it may be necessary to change the time of the non-rotating, regular call. The co-chairs and staff recognize that there is likely not one single time that will suit all time zones and that some suggested times are fairly difficult for some WG members, especially those situated in the APAC region. As such, the co-chairs wish to ask Members to indicate, via response to this Doodle poll, whether they approve a change from 1600 UTC (the current time) to 1700 UTC for the non-rotating calls: http://doodle.com/poll/5t5zaticrz9cfizf. II. For All: (i) TMCH Data Sub Team The following Members have signed up for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Sub Team that will be tasked to contact various relevant sources (e.g. ICANN’s Global Domains Division; the TMCH provider; the TMCH Independent Examiner etc.) to begin the process of data gathering for the Working Group’s TMCH review: Scott Austin, Catherine Douglas, Salvador Camacho Hernandez, Marina Lewis, Susan Payne. A mailing list will be set up for these Members, the WG co-chairs and ICANN support staff to begin this work. If you are a Member of the WG and would like to join this Sub Team, please send me an email (note that the co-chairs may limit the number of Members for the team). The Sub Team may also decide to request a list of the TMCH marks to compare with frequency of registrations (and variety of different registrants) with those in other TLDs Other suggestions include one for a survey of mark-holders who did not register in the TMCH, to understand why they chose not to do so. A survey of registrars and even registrants, to see whether TMCH match notices/warnings caused them undue pressure to not register names could also be considered. (ii) Additional Questions for the WG The following Additional Questions were also suggested by various Members for the Working Group to consider as part of the review of the TMCH and the Trademark Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure. Please send any thoughts or comments you may have on these to this email list for further consideration and discussion. Note that these do not replace and may be added to the existing list of issues currently attached to our Charter: For the TMCH: - Are the fees reasonable? - Should there be multiple TMCH Providers? - What % of contemplated domain name registrations were deterred due to the notices of a matching mark in the TMCH database? (note: registrars might have this information, e.g. via abandoned shopping carts for new gTLDs vs ccTLDs or legacy gTLDs) - Strength of the marks in the TMCH, i.e. what % are fanciful, vs. descriptive, generic, etc. (note: interest here is finding out whether a TMCH registration allows "weak" marks to gain some advantage, vs. the first-come first serve system) - Should there be a time limit on Claims notices? (query whether this should be considered under the TMCH review or the Claims Period review – interest here is finding out whether there is an increase in registrations after the Claims Notices end) For the TM-PDDRP: - It has never been used so one question could be whether it is broad enough to cover abuses that were not anticipated when it was developed? General Question about whether there is latitude for the WG to change our Charter – WG should at minimum be open about "foundational issues" about the UDRP that may nevertheless be relevant to flag for discussion even during Phase One; a specific suggestion is for ICANN staff to make a list of foundational issues identified during Phase One that may be relevant to Phase Two Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889
Dear all, On the TMCH, this is somewhat covered by the “Are the fees reasonable?” question, but I have always wondered why the Basic Fee option is not available to Trademark agents as it is for Trademark Holders. Cordially, Caroline G. Chicoine Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. Phone: 314.991.8486 Fax: 612.492.7077 cchicoine@fredlaw.com<mailto:cchicoine@fredlaw.com> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 10:35 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!) Dear all, The following note contains an initial section for Members only, followed by a section intended for both Members and Observers, containing notes of the last Working Group call. I. For Members only: Please note the upcoming WG call on Wednesday 8 June will not be a rotating call; in other words, the 8 June WG meeting will take place at the regular time of 1600 UTC. However, the next call – on Wednesday 15 June – will rotate to 2100 UTC. Please look out for updated calendar invitations from the GNSO Secretariat. This change is being made to partially accommodate the biweekly Registries Stakeholder Group calls. In order to fully accommodate the Registries SG calls, however, it may be necessary to change the time of the non-rotating, regular call. The co-chairs and staff recognize that there is likely not one single time that will suit all time zones and that some suggested times are fairly difficult for some WG members, especially those situated in the APAC region. As such, the co-chairs wish to ask Members to indicate, via response to this Doodle poll, whether they approve a change from 1600 UTC (the current time) to 1700 UTC for the non-rotating calls: http://doodle.com/poll/5t5zaticrz9cfizf<http://doodle.com/poll/5t5zaticrz9cfizf>. II. For All: (i) TMCH Data Sub Team The following Members have signed up for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Sub Team that will be tasked to contact various relevant sources (e.g. ICANN’s Global Domains Division; the TMCH provider; the TMCH Independent Examiner etc.) to begin the process of data gathering for the Working Group’s TMCH review: Scott Austin, Catherine Douglas, Salvador Camacho Hernandez, Marina Lewis, Susan Payne. A mailing list will be set up for these Members, the WG co-chairs and ICANN support staff to begin this work. If you are a Member of the WG and would like to join this Sub Team, please send me an email (note that the co-chairs may limit the number of Members for the team). The Sub Team may also decide to request a list of the TMCH marks to compare with frequency of registrations (and variety of different registrants) with those in other TLDs Other suggestions include one for a survey of mark-holders who did not register in the TMCH, to understand why they chose not to do so. A survey of registrars and even registrants, to see whether TMCH match notices/warnings caused them undue pressure to not register names could also be considered. (ii) Additional Questions for the WG The following Additional Questions were also suggested by various Members for the Working Group to consider as part of the review of the TMCH and the Trademark Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure. Please send any thoughts or comments you may have on these to this email list for further consideration and discussion. Note that these do not replace and may be added to the existing list of issues currently attached to our Charter: For the TMCH: - Are the fees reasonable? - Should there be multiple TMCH Providers? - What % of contemplated domain name registrations were deterred due to the notices of a matching mark in the TMCH database? (note: registrars might have this information, e.g. via abandoned shopping carts for new gTLDs vs ccTLDs or legacy gTLDs) - Strength of the marks in the TMCH, i.e. what % are fanciful, vs. descriptive, generic, etc. (note: interest here is finding out whether a TMCH registration allows "weak" marks to gain some advantage, vs. the first-come first serve system) - Should there be a time limit on Claims notices? (query whether this should be considered under the TMCH review or the Claims Period review – interest here is finding out whether there is an increase in registrations after the Claims Notices end) For the TM-PDDRP: - It has never been used so one question could be whether it is broad enough to cover abuses that were not anticipated when it was developed? General Question about whether there is latitude for the WG to change our Charter – WG should at minimum be open about "foundational issues" about the UDRP that may nevertheless be relevant to flag for discussion even during Phase One; a specific suggestion is for ICANN staff to make a list of foundational issues identified during Phase One that may be relevant to Phase Two Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
Hi Everyone: Under the question of "are the fees reasonable" we should examine or find: + "what are the fee drivers?" or put another way, "what TMCH policy or implementation requirements affect the fees?" + "can any of those requirements be eliminated or modified?" Regards, Kurt --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!) From: "Chicoine, Caroline" <CChicoine@fredlaw.com> Date: 6/8/16 8:52 am To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Dear all, On the TMCH, this is somewhat covered by the “Are the fees reasonable?” question, but I have always wondered why the Basic Fee option is not available to Trademark agents as it is for Trademark Holders. Cordially, Caroline G. Chicoine Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. Phone: 314.991.8486 Fax: 612.492.7077 cchicoine@fredlaw.com From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 10:35 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!) Dear all, The following note contains an initial section for Members only, followed by a section intended for both Members and Observers, containing notes of the last Working Group call. I. For Members only: Please note the upcoming WG call on Wednesday 8 June will not be a rotating call; in other words, the 8 June WG meeting will take place at the regular time of 1600 UTC. However, the next call - on Wednesday 15 June - will rotate to 2100 UTC. Please look out for updated calendar invitations from the GNSO Secretariat. This change is being made to partially accommodate the biweekly Registries Stakeholder Group calls. In order to fully accommodate the Registries SG calls, however, it may be necessary to change the time of the non-rotating, regular call. The co-chairs and staff recognize that there is likely not one single time that will suit all time zones and that some suggested times are fairly difficult for some WG members, especially those situated in the APAC region. As such, the co-chairs wish to ask Members to indicate, via response to this Doodle poll, whether they approve a change from 1600 UTC (the current time) to 1700 UTC for the non-rotating calls: http://doodle.com/poll/5t5zaticrz9cfizf. II. For All: (i) TMCH Data Sub Team The following Members have signed up for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Sub Team that will be tasked to contact various relevant sources (e.g. ICANN's Global Domains Division; the TMCH provider; the TMCH Independent Examiner etc.) to begin the process of data gathering for the Working Group's TMCH review: Scott Austin, Catherine Douglas, Salvador Camacho Hernandez, Marina Lewis, Susan Payne. A mailing list will be set up for these Members, the WG co-chairs and ICANN support staff to begin this work. If you are a Member of the WG and would like to join this Sub Team, please send me an email (note that the co-chairs may limit the number of Members for the team). The Sub Team may also decide to request a list of the TMCH marks to compare with frequency of registrations (and variety of different registrants) with those in other TLDs Other suggestions include one for a survey of mark-holders who did not register in the TMCH, to understand why they chose not to do so. A survey of registrars and even registrants, to see whether TMCH match notices/warnings caused them undue pressure to not register names could also be considered. (ii) Additional Questions for the WG The following Additional Questions were also suggested by various Members for the Working Group to consider as part of the review of the TMCH and the Trademark Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure. Please send any thoughts or comments you may have on these to this email list for further consideration and discussion. Note that these do not replace and may be added to the existing list of issues currently attached to our Charter: For the TMCH: - Are the fees reasonable? - Should there be multiple TMCH Providers? - What % of contemplated domain name registrations were deterred due to the notices of a matching mark in the TMCH database? (note: registrars might have this information, e.g. via abandoned shopping carts for new gTLDs vs ccTLDs or legacy gTLDs) - Strength of the marks in the TMCH, i.e. what % are fanciful, vs. descriptive, generic, etc. (note: interest here is finding out whether a TMCH registration allows "weak" marks to gain some advantage, vs. the first-come first serve system) - Should there be a time limit on Claims notices? (query whether this should be considered under the TMCH review or the Claims Period review - interest here is finding out whether there is an increase in registrations after the Claims Notices end) For the TM-PDDRP: - It has never been used so one question could be whether it is broad enough to cover abuses that were not anticipated when it was developed? General Question about whether there is latitude for the WG to change our Charter - WG should at minimum be open about "foundational issues" about the UDRP that may nevertheless be relevant to flag for discussion even during Phase One; a specific suggestion is for ICANN staff to make a list of foundational issues identified during Phase One that may be relevant to Phase Two Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi, I believe that the TMCH is a for profit entity. This any discussion on fees is an economic negotiation process and not simply one of policy. Paul Keating
On 08 Jun 2016, at 5:09 PM, kurt@kjpritz.com wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Under the question of "are the fees reasonable" we should examine or find: "what are the fee drivers?" or put another way, "what TMCH policy or implementation requirements affect the fees?" "can any of those requirements be eliminated or modified?"
Regards,
Kurt
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!) From: "Chicoine, Caroline" <CChicoine@fredlaw.com> Date: 6/8/16 8:52 am To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Dear all,
On the TMCH, this is somewhat covered by the “Are the fees reasonable?” question, but I have always wondered why the Basic Fee option is not available to Trademark agents as it is for Trademark Holders.
Cordially,
Caroline G. Chicoine Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. Phone: 314.991.8486 Fax: 612.492.7077 cchicoine@fredlaw.com
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 10:35 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!)
Dear all,
The following note contains an initial section for Members only, followed by a section intended for both Members and Observers, containing notes of the last Working Group call.
I. For Members only:
Please note the upcoming WG call on Wednesday 8 June will not be a rotating call; in other words, the 8 June WG meeting will take place at the regular time of 1600 UTC. However, the next call – on Wednesday 15 June – will rotate to 2100 UTC. Please look out for updated calendar invitations from the GNSO Secretariat. This change is being made to partially accommodate the biweekly Registries Stakeholder Group calls.
In order to fully accommodate the Registries SG calls, however, it may be necessary to change the time of the non-rotating, regular call. The co-chairs and staff recognize that there is likely not one single time that will suit all time zones and that some suggested times are fairly difficult for some WG members, especially those situated in the APAC region. As such, the co-chairs wish to ask Members to indicate, via response to this Doodle poll, whether they approve a change from 1600 UTC (the current time) to 1700 UTC for the non-rotating calls: http://doodle.com/poll/5t5zaticrz9cfizf.
II. For All:
(i) TMCH Data Sub Team
The following Members have signed up for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Sub Team that will be tasked to contact various relevant sources (e.g. ICANN’s Global Domains Division; the TMCH provider; the TMCH Independent Examiner etc.) to begin the process of data gathering for the Working Group’s TMCH review: Scott Austin, Catherine Douglas, Salvador Camacho Hernandez, Marina Lewis, Susan Payne. A mailing list will be set up for these Members, the WG co-chairs and ICANN support staff to begin this work. If you are a Member of the WG and would like to join this Sub Team, please send me an email (note that the co-chairs may limit the number of Members for the team).
The Sub Team may also decide to request a list of the TMCH marks to compare with frequency of registrations (and variety of different registrants) with those in other TLDs
Other suggestions include one for a survey of mark-holders who did not register in the TMCH, to understand why they chose not to do so. A survey of registrars and even registrants, to see whether TMCH match notices/warnings caused them undue pressure to not register names could also be considered.
(ii) Additional Questions for the WG
The following Additional Questions were also suggested by various Members for the Working Group to consider as part of the review of the TMCH and the Trademark Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure. Please send any thoughts or comments you may have on these to this email list for further consideration and discussion. Note that these do not replace and may be added to the existing list of issues currently attached to our Charter:
For the TMCH:
- Are the fees reasonable?
- Should there be multiple TMCH Providers?
- What % of contemplated domain name registrations were deterred due to the notices of a matching mark in the TMCH database? (note: registrars might have this information, e.g. via abandoned shopping carts for new gTLDs vs ccTLDs or legacy gTLDs)
- Strength of the marks in the TMCH, i.e. what % are fanciful, vs. descriptive, generic, etc. (note: interest here is finding out whether a TMCH registration allows "weak" marks to gain some advantage, vs. the first-come first serve system)
- Should there be a time limit on Claims notices? (query whether this should be considered under the TMCH review or the Claims Period review – interest here is finding out whether there is an increase in registrations after the Claims Notices end)
For the TM-PDDRP:
- It has never been used so one question could be whether it is broad enough to cover abuses that were not anticipated when it was developed?
General Question about whether there is latitude for the WG to change our Charter – WG should at minimum be open about "foundational issues" about the UDRP that may nevertheless be relevant to flag for discussion even during Phase One; a specific suggestion is for ICANN staff to make a list of foundational issues identified during Phase One that may be relevant to Phase Two
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (4)
-
Chicoine, Caroline -
kurt＠kjpritz.com -
Mary Wong -
Paul＠law.es ZIMBRA