New subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!)

June 6, 2016

      Thanks for the summary, Mary.

I want to suggest another question to help evaluate the effectiveness of the
TMCH:  How many trademarks were denied validation by the TMCH and for what
reasons (by %)?  Along with the other questions presented below, this will
be helpful in evaluating whether existing TMCH rules/procedures produced
desired (or other) results.

Also, per the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, trademarks containing a “dot” were
not accepted by the TMCH.  Is this something we need to consider within our
PDP given the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP?

Thanks,
Darcy
__________

Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer

M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart

From:  <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong
<mary.wong@icann.org>
Date:  Monday, June 6, 2016 at 8:34 AM
To:  "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <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.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES (please read!)

Darcy Southwell

Massimo Vittori

tags

participants (2)

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!)

Darcy Southwell

Massimo Vittori

tags

participants (2)

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES (please read!)