Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised. There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance? Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
(1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Agree with Jeff.
Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important than any other public comment?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Thanks Mary.
Co-Chairs,
Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database?
I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other issues.
I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow down out work.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
Dear all,
During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested document (for #1) and information (for #2).
Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with certain aspects of the TMCH: https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final.pdf.
Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject to ICANN's authorization.
Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN:
1. Extended Claims Services The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party's recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse).
2. Audit Report Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD.
FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program.
Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hello Kiran and everyone, In answer to your question, staff circulated the letter as an “action item” from Copenhagen since it had been mentioned during the Working Group meeting and several members requested to see a copy. To further clarify, staff did not intend to suggest that the letter be privileged above other input that may be received by the Working Group or the co-chairs – it is up to the Working Group to determine when, if and how to consider such input which may be received outside a formal public comment period or other open solicitation of feedback. Looking at the latest Working Group membership list, we see that two of the signatories to the letter are current Working Group members (Rebecca Tushnet and Robin Gross), while two other signatories are observers (Eve Brown and Jeremy Malcolm). Cheers Mary On 3/28/17, 17:42, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote: Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised. There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance? Thanks, Kiran Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: > > (1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all > comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? > Rebecca Tushnet > Georgetown Law > 703 593 6759 > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg > <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote: >> Agree with Jeff. >> >> Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important than any other public comment? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kiran >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138 (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >> On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: >> >> Thanks Mary. >> >> Co-Chairs, >> >> Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database? >> >> I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other issues. >> >> I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow down out work. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman >> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA >> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 >> Mclean, VA 22102, United States >> E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >> T: +1.703.635.7514 >> M: +1.202.549.5079 >> @Jintlaw >> >> >> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong >> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM >> To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services >> >> Dear all, >> >> During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested document (for #1) and information (for #2). >> >> Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with certain aspects of the TMCH: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.eff.org_files_2017_... . >> >> Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject to ICANN's authorization. >> >> Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN: >> >> 1. Extended Claims Services >> The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party's recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse). >> >> >> 2. Audit Report >> Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD. >> >> FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program. >> >> Thanks and cheers >> Mary >> _______________________________________________ >> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >> _______________________________________________ >> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Mary, Thanks for clarifying that this was circulated as a result of an "action item" from ICANN58. It wasn't immediately clear why this was circulated, especially since it was circulated close to the time that agenda items were also circulated. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Kiran and everyone,
In answer to your question, staff circulated the letter as an “action item” from Copenhagen since it had been mentioned during the Working Group meeting and several members requested to see a copy. To further clarify, staff did not intend to suggest that the letter be privileged above other input that may be received by the Working Group or the co-chairs – it is up to the Working Group to determine when, if and how to consider such input which may be received outside a formal public comment period or other open solicitation of feedback.
Looking at the latest Working Group membership list, we see that two of the signatories to the letter are current Working Group members (Rebecca Tushnet and Robin Gross), while two other signatories are observers (Eve Brown and Jeremy Malcolm).
Cheers Mary
On 3/28/17, 17:42, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised.
There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law. georgetown.edu> wrote: > > (1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all > comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? > Rebecca Tushnet > Georgetown Law > 703 593 6759 > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg > <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote: >> Agree with Jeff. >> >> Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important than any other public comment? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kiran >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138 (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >> On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com< mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: >> >> Thanks Mary. >> >> Co-Chairs, >> >> Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database? >> >> I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other issues. >> >> I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow down out work. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman >> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA >> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 >> Mclean, VA 22102, United States >> E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >> T: +1.703.635.7514 >> M: +1.202.549.5079 >> @Jintlaw >> >> >> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong >> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM >> To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services >> >> Dear all, >> >> During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested document (for #1) and information (for #2). >> >> Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with certain aspects of the TMCH: https://urldefense.proofpoint. com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.eff.org_files_2017_03_10_tm- 5Fscholars-5Fletter-5Fto-5Ficann-5Ffinal.pdf&d=DwICAg&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe- idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=cCuaJjefYd3W30oTquvnocEQ9ktidn FDKhB4Rwyyjw0&s=h7KWvCBBqxKAwQEz8RnV7INpr2h5EGABu4uKh2ZNJp8&e= . >> >> Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject to ICANN's authorization. >> >> Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN: >> >> 1. Extended Claims Services >> The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party's recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse). >> >> >> 2. Audit Report >> Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD. >> >> FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program. >> >> Thanks and cheers >> Mary >> _______________________________________________ >> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >> _______________________________________________ >> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ 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
Well it was written but some relatively heavies in the legal field. On 3/28/17, 4:42 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised.
There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
(1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Agree with Jeff.
Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important than any other public comment?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Thanks Mary.
Co-Chairs,
Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database?
I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other issues.
I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow down out work.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
Dear all,
During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested document (for #1) and information (for #2).
Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with certain aspects of the TMCH: https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final.p df.
Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject to ICANN's authorization.
Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN:
1. Extended Claims Services The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party's recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse).
2. Audit Report Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD.
FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program.
Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
With respect Paul, even if I agreed with that characterization, no one is "heavier" than anyone else at ICANN. Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
Well it was written but some relatively heavies in the legal field.
On 3/28/17, 4:42 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised.
There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
(1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Agree with Jeff.
Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important than any other public comment?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Thanks Mary.
Co-Chairs,
Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database?
I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other issues.
I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow down out work.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
Dear all,
During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested document (for #1) and information (for #2).
Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with certain aspects of the TMCH: https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final.p df.
Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject to ICANN's authorization.
Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN:
1. Extended Claims Services The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party's recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse).
2. Audit Report Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD.
FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program.
Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
O please. If I wrote the letter you all should not care a whit. If EFF and other scholars (all listed) wrote the letter, I ask that we all stand up and read it. On 3/28/17, 6:39 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
With respect Paul, even if I agreed with that characterization, no one is "heavier" than anyone else at ICANN.
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
Well it was written but some relatively heavies in the legal field.
On 3/28/17, 4:42 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised.
There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
(1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Agree with Jeff.
Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important than any other public comment?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Thanks Mary.
Co-Chairs,
Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database?
I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other issues.
I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow down out work.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
Dear all,
During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested document (for #1) and information (for #2).
Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with certain aspects of the TMCH:
https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final .p df.
Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject to ICANN's authorization.
Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN:
1. Extended Claims Services The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party's recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse).
2. Audit Report Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD.
FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program.
Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I'm sorry that you don't seem to respect the multistakeholder decision making process, but PDP procedures demand that all public comments be evaluated equally. Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:48 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
O please. If I wrote the letter you all should not care a whit. If EFF and other scholars (all listed) wrote the letter, I ask that we all stand up and read it.
On 3/28/17, 6:39 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
With respect Paul, even if I agreed with that characterization, no one is "heavier" than anyone else at ICANN.
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
Well it was written but some relatively heavies in the legal field.
On 3/28/17, 4:42 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised.
There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
(1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Agree with Jeff.
Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important than any other public comment?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Thanks Mary.
Co-Chairs,
Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database?
I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other issues.
I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow down out work.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
Dear all,
During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested document (for #1) and information (for #2).
Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with certain aspects of the TMCH:
https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final .p df.
Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject to ICANN's authorization.
Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN:
1. Extended Claims Services The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party's recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse).
2. Audit Report Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD.
FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program.
Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I have full respect for the system and all comments must be reviewed and considered. The issue was in what order they need to be considered. I see no reason why we must use a taxi-stand approach. Do you? Sent from my iPad
On 28 Mar 2017, at 19:50, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I'm sorry that you don't seem to respect the multistakeholder decision making process, but PDP procedures demand that all public comments be evaluated equally.
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:48 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
O please. If I wrote the letter you all should not care a whit. If EFF and other scholars (all listed) wrote the letter, I ask that we all stand up and read it.
On 3/28/17, 6:39 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
With respect Paul, even if I agreed with that characterization, no one is "heavier" than anyone else at ICANN.
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
Well it was written but some relatively heavies in the legal field.
On 3/28/17, 4:42 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised.
There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
(1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote: > Agree with Jeff. > > Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are > they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important > than any other public comment? > > Thanks, > > Kiran > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138 (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman > <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: > > Thanks Mary. > > Co-Chairs, > > Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we > would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments > with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH > database? > > I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with > respect > to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those > other issues. > > I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion > around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in > general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and > considerably slow down out work. > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or > jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > T: +1.703.635.7514 > M: +1.202.549.5079 > @Jintlaw > > > From: > gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM > To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark > scholars > and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services > > Dear all, > > During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the > following > two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the > requested document (for #1) and information (for #2). > > Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and > practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with > certain aspects of the TMCH: > > https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final > .p > df. > > Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is > permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, > subject > to ICANN's authorization. > > Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN: > > 1. Extended Claims Services > The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or > Trademark > Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain > name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such > party's > recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not > include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a > notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the > domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label > recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse). > > > 2. Audit Report > Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and > Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the > Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily > of > a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the > Trademark > Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD. > > FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring > on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement > under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals > thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH > validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified > Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Paul, That still doesn't answer the question of who actually wrote the letter. It's clear who signed onto it, but there's no evidence of who wrote it. (And BTW, EFF is not "a scholar.") As for reading the letter, I don't think anyone was suggesting that it not be read. But there's no reason to give it special consideration either. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
O please. If I wrote the letter you all should not care a whit. If EFF and other scholars (all listed) wrote the letter, I ask that we all stand up and read it.
On 3/28/17, 6:39 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
With respect Paul, even if I agreed with that characterization, no one is "heavier" than anyone else at ICANN.
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
Well it was written but some relatively heavies in the legal field.
On 3/28/17, 4:42 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised.
There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
(1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Agree with Jeff.
Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important than any other public comment?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Thanks Mary.
Co-Chairs,
Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database?
I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other issues.
I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow down out work.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
Dear all,
During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested document (for #1) and information (for #2).
Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with certain aspects of the TMCH:
https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_ letter_to_icann_final .p df.
Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject to ICANN's authorization.
Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN:
1. Extended Claims Services The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party's recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse).
2. Audit Report Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD.
FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program.
Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
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
Ok, then IMHO some questions need to be asked and answered. Are we going to conduct such investigations as to all comments? Are we reserving such a process only for those one or more of us do not like? Are we not able to prioritize how we do our work and what we consider or are we applying g a taxi cab system of first-in-first-out AS TO EVERY COMMENT? Sent from my iPad
On 28 Mar 2017, at 19:57, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul,
That still doesn't answer the question of who actually wrote the letter. It's clear who signed onto it, but there's no evidence of who wrote it. (And BTW, EFF is not "a scholar.")
As for reading the letter, I don't think anyone was suggesting that it not be read. But there's no reason to give it special consideration either.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote: O please. If I wrote the letter you all should not care a whit. If EFF and other scholars (all listed) wrote the letter, I ask that we all stand up and read it.
On 3/28/17, 6:39 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
With respect Paul, even if I agreed with that characterization, no one is "heavier" than anyone else at ICANN.
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
Well it was written but some relatively heavies in the legal field.
On 3/28/17, 4:42 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised.
There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
(1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote: > Agree with Jeff. > > Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are > they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important > than any other public comment? > > Thanks, > > Kiran > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138 (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman > <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: > > Thanks Mary. > > Co-Chairs, > > Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we > would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments > with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH >database? > > I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with >respect > to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those > other issues. > > I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion > around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in > general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and > considerably slow down out work. > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or > jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > T: +1.703.635.7514 > M: +1.202.549.5079 > @Jintlaw > > > From: > gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM > To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark >scholars > and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services > > Dear all, > > During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the >following > two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the > requested document (for #1) and information (for #2). > > Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and > practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with > certain aspects of the TMCH: > >https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final >.p > df. > > Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is > permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, >subject > to ICANN's authorization. > > Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN: > > 1. Extended Claims Services > The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or >Trademark > Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain > name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such >party's > recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not > include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a > notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the > domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label > recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse). > > > 2. Audit Report > Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and > Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the > Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily >of > a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the >Trademark > Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD. > > FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring > on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement > under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals > thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH > validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified > Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
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
Do we know who wrote the letter? *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
Well it was written but some relatively heavies in the legal field.
On 3/28/17, 4:42 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised.
There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
(1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Agree with Jeff.
Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important than any other public comment?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Thanks Mary.
Co-Chairs,
Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database?
I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other issues.
I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow down out work.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
Dear all,
During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested document (for #1) and information (for #2).
Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with certain aspects of the TMCH: https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_ to_icann_final.p df.
Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject to ICANN's authorization.
Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN:
1. Extended Claims Services The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party's recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse).
2. Audit Report Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD.
FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program.
Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
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
<<On 3/28/2017 1:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Do we know who wrote the letter?
Hi Greg, As we know and practice, ICANN has a policy of encouraging outreach and participation - even when people cannot come to our far-flung meetings in Copenhagen and elsewhere. In light of the invitation for outreach and Community participation at both of our meetings in Copenhagen, the timing of this Trademark Scholars letter seems appropriate. Questions were raised in Copenhagen about the background of signatories, and you raise above. When I returned home, I button-holed an associate to take a fast look. Here is his summary (which I have not touched or edited, except to paste below): Eve J. Brown Owner, Bricolage Law §Director of Entrepreneurship & Innovation Law Clinic at Boston University School of Law §Founded a boutique law firm specializing in trademark law §Former Director of Intellectual Property & Entrepreneurship Clinic at Suffolk University Law School Annemarie Bridy Professor, University of Idaho College of Law & Stanford Center for Internet and Society (CIS) §Teaches courses in Internet and intellectual property law §Authored several scholarly articles and books on intellectual property §Affiliated Fellow at Yale Law School Information Society Project §Affiliated Scholar at Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society §Affiliated Researcher at University of California Berkeley Law School, Takedown Project Christine Haight Farley Professor, American University Washington College of Law §Teaches multiple courses in trademark law at American University Washington College of Law §Former co-director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property §Several trademark law articles published in scholarly journals §Presented as a panelist at several conferences and roundtables on trademark law Victoria Philips Professor of Practice, American University College of Law §Director of the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic §Published on intellectual property law by several scholarly journals §Presented as a panelist and moderator at several conferences and workshops Gidget Benitez Program Coordinator –Program on Information Justice & Intellectual Property, American University College of Law §Former editor-in-chief and symposium chair of the American University Intellectual Property Brief William McGeveran Associate Professor of Law and Solly Robins Distinguished Research Fellow, University of Minnesota Law School §Teaches Trademark Law and Internet Law at University of Minnesota Law School §Several trademark law publications and academic presentations §Practiced trademark law at Foley Hoag LLP Robin Gross Attorney and Executive Director, IP Justice §Practices trademark law at the Law Offices of Robin D. Gross §Founder and Executive Director of IP Justice §Former Staff Attorney for Intellectual Property at Electronic Frontier Foundation §Several intellectual property law publications Rebeca Tushnet Professor, Georgetown Law Center §Teaches Trademark and Unfair Competition Law at Georgetown Law Center §Clerked for Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter §Trademark law publications in numerous law reviews and scholarly journals §Practiced trademark law at Debevoise & Plimpton Art Neill Executive Director, New Media Rights Clinical Professor, California Western School of Law §Practices public interest law in the area of intellectual property §Named to Fastcase 50, which honors the law's smartest, most courageous innovators, techies, visionaries, and leaders §Several publications on intellectual property law Dev S. Gangjee Associate Professor, University of Oxford §Associate Professor in Intellectual Property at University of Oxford §Former Rhodes Scholar §Several publications on intellectual property law Robert Burrell Professor of Law, University of Sheffield and University of Melbourne §Helped establish a boutique law firm specializing in intellectual property and worked as a registered trademarks attorney §Teaches Trade Mark Law in a Branded World §Several publications on intellectual property law Michael Handler Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales §Teaches and researches in the field of intellectual property law, focusing on domestic and international aspects of trademark law and the law of geographical indications of origin Stacey Dogan Professor, Boston University School of Law §Teaches Trademark and Unfair Competition at Boston University School of Law §Trademark and other intellectual property publications in journals including the Stanford Law Review, Emory Law Journal, Iowa Law Review and Texas Law Review §Practiced trademark law at Covington & Burling Leah Chan Grinvald Professor, Suffolk University Law School §Teaches Trademark and Intellectual Property Law at Suffolk University Law School §Trademark and other intellectual property publications in journals including the Marquette Law Review and Wisconsin Law Review §Advised on trademark law as Global Corporate Counsel at Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. Eric Goldman Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law §Teaches Intellectual Property at Santa Clara University School of Law §Co-director of the High Tech Law Institute §Blogs on Internet law matters at the Technology & Marketing Law Blog and the Tertium Quid Blog at Forbes David G. Post Professor of Law (ret.), Temple University §Taught intellectual property courses at Temple University and Georgetown Law Center §Clerked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg §Authored several books, articles, and amicus briefs on intellectual property law Tamir Israel Staff Lawyer, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) §Part Time Professor at University of Ottawa, teaching Regulation of Internet Commerce §Staff Lawyer at Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic, which focuses on the intersection of law and technology Michael Geist Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa §Full Professor, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section §Named Top 50 Most Influential Intellectual Property Worldwide in 2010 and 2011 by Managing Intellectual Property §Received Public Knowledge IP3 Award for Intellectual Property in 2010 §Authored several books and articles on internet law and intellectual property law Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst, Electronic Frontier Foundation §Works on the international dimensions of issues such as intellectual property, network neutrality, Internet governance, and trade as part of EFF’s international team §Worked for Consumers International coordinating its global program Consumers in the Digital Age Mitch Stoltz Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation §Works on the intersection of free speech and copyright and trademark law §Practiced intellectual property law at Constantine Cannon LLP Best, Kathy
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es <mailto:Paul@law.es>> wrote:
Well it was written but some relatively heavies in the legal field.
On 3/28/17, 4:42 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
>Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When >input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, >the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to >facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a >better common understanding of the issues raised. > >There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for >solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public >comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering >this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance? > >Thanks, > >Kiran > >Kiran Malancharuvil >Policy Counselor >MarkMonitor >415-419-9138 <tel:415-419-9138> (m) > >Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > >> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet >><Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu <mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>> wrote: >> >> (1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all >> comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? >> Rebecca Tushnet >> Georgetown Law >> 703 593 6759 <tel:703%20593%206759> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg >> <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: >>> Agree with Jeff. >>> >>> Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are >>>they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important >>>than any other public comment? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Kiran >>> >>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>> Policy Counselor >>> MarkMonitor >>> 415-419-9138 <tel:415-419-9138> (m) >>> >>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >>> >>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman >>><jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Mary. >>> >>> Co-Chairs, >>> >>> Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we >>>would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments >>>with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database? >>> >>> I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect >>>to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those >>>other issues. >>> >>> I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion >>>around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in >>>general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and >>>considerably slow down out work. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA >>> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 >>> Mclean, VA 22102, United States >>> E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>> or >>>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> >>> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%2B1.703.635.7514> >>> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%2B1.202.549.5079> >>> @Jintlaw >>> >>> >>> From: >>>gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> >>>[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mary Wong >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM >>> To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> >>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars >>>and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following >>>two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the >>>requested document (for #1) and information (for #2). >>> >>> Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and >>>practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with >>>certain aspects of the TMCH: >>>https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final.p <https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final.p> >>>df. >>> >>> Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is >>>permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject >>>to ICANN's authorization. >>> >>> Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN: >>> >>> 1. Extended Claims Services >>> The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark >>>Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain >>>name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party's >>>recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not >>>include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a >>>notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the >>>domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label >>>recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse). >>> >>> >>> 2. Audit Report >>> Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and >>>Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the >>>Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of >>>a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark >>>Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD. >>> >>> FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring >>>on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement >>>under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals >>>thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH >>>validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified >>>Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program. >>> >>> Thanks and cheers >>> Mary >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> >_______________________________________________ >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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
_______________________________________________ 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://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
Thanks Kathy. However, I think Greg is more interested in who “authored” the actual text of the letter. J. Scott [ttps://inside.corp.adobe.com/content/dam/brandcenter/images/image002.gif] J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 11:05 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services <<On 3/28/2017 1:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Do we know who wrote the letter?
Hi Greg, As we know and practice, ICANN has a policy of encouraging outreach and participation - even when people cannot come to our far-flung meetings in Copenhagen and elsewhere. In light of the invitation for outreach and Community participation at both of our meetings in Copenhagen, the timing of this Trademark Scholars letter seems appropriate. Questions were raised in Copenhagen about the background of signatories, and you raise above. When I returned home, I button-holed an associate to take a fast look. Here is his summary (which I have not touched or edited, except to paste below): Eve J. Brown Owner, Bricolage Law • Director of Entrepreneurship & Innovation Law Clinic at Boston University School of Law • Founded a boutique law firm specializing in trademark law • Former Director of Intellectual Property & Entrepreneurship Clinic at Suffolk University Law School Annemarie Bridy Professor, University of Idaho College of Law & Stanford Center for Internet and Society (CIS) • Teaches courses in Internet and intellectual property law • Authored several scholarly articles and books on intellectual property • Affiliated Fellow at Yale Law School Information Society Project • Affiliated Scholar at Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society • Affiliated Researcher at University of California Berkeley Law School, Takedown Project Christine Haight Farley Professor, American University Washington College of Law • Teaches multiple courses in trademark law at American University Washington College of Law • Former co-director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property • Several trademark law articles published in scholarly journals • Presented as a panelist at several conferences and roundtables on trademark law Victoria Philips Professor of Practice, American University College of Law • Director of the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic • Published on intellectual property law by several scholarly journals • Presented as a panelist and moderator at several conferences and workshops Gidget Benitez Program Coordinator –Program on Information Justice & Intellectual Property, American University College of Law • Former editor-in-chief and symposium chair of the American University Intellectual Property Brief William McGeveran Associate Professor of Law and Solly Robins Distinguished Research Fellow, University of Minnesota Law School • Teaches Trademark Law and Internet Law at University of Minnesota Law School • Several trademark law publications and academic presentations • Practiced trademark law at Foley Hoag LLP Robin Gross Attorney and Executive Director, IP Justice • Practices trademark law at the Law Offices of Robin D. Gross • Founder and Executive Director of IP Justice • Former Staff Attorney for Intellectual Property at Electronic Frontier Foundation • Several intellectual property law publications Rebeca Tushnet Professor, Georgetown Law Center • Teaches Trademark and Unfair Competition Law at Georgetown Law Center • Clerked for Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter • Trademark law publications in numerous law reviews and scholarly journals • Practiced trademark law at Debevoise & Plimpton Art Neill Executive Director, New Media Rights Clinical Professor, California Western School of Law • Practices public interest law in the area of intellectual property • Named to Fastcase 50, which honors the law's smartest, most courageous innovators, techies, visionaries, and leaders • Several publications on intellectual property law Dev S. Gangjee Associate Professor, University of Oxford • Associate Professor in Intellectual Property at University of Oxford • Former Rhodes Scholar • Several publications on intellectual property law Robert Burrell Professor of Law, University of Sheffield and University of Melbourne • Helped establish a boutique law firm specializing in intellectual property and worked as a registered trademarks attorney • Teaches Trade Mark Law in a Branded World • Several publications on intellectual property law Michael Handler Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales • Teaches and researches in the field of intellectual property law, focusing on domestic and international aspects of trademark law and the law of geographical indications of origin Stacey Dogan Professor, Boston University School of Law • Teaches Trademark and Unfair Competition at Boston University School of Law • Trademark and other intellectual property publications in journals including the Stanford Law Review, Emory Law Journal, Iowa Law Review and Texas Law Review • Practiced trademark law at Covington & Burling Leah Chan Grinvald Professor, Suffolk University Law School • Teaches Trademark and Intellectual Property Law at Suffolk University Law School • Trademark and other intellectual property publications in journals including the Marquette Law Review and Wisconsin Law Review • Advised on trademark law as Global Corporate Counsel at Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. Eric Goldman Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law • Teaches Intellectual Property at Santa Clara University School of Law • Co-director of the High Tech Law Institute • Blogs on Internet law matters at the Technology & Marketing Law Blog and the Tertium Quid Blog at Forbes David G. Post Professor of Law (ret.), Temple University • Taught intellectual property courses at Temple University and Georgetown Law Center • Clerked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Authored several books, articles, and amicus briefs on intellectual property law Tamir Israel Staff Lawyer, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) • Part Time Professor at University of Ottawa, teaching Regulation of Internet Commerce • Staff Lawyer at Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic, which focuses on the intersection of law and technology Michael Geist Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa • Full Professor, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section • Named Top 50 Most Influential Intellectual Property Worldwide in 2010 and 2011 by Managing Intellectual Property • Received Public Knowledge IP3 Award for Intellectual Property in 2010 • Authored several books and articles on internet law and intellectual property law Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst, Electronic Frontier Foundation • Works on the international dimensions of issues such as intellectual property, network neutrality, Internet governance, and trade as part of EFF’s international team • Worked for Consumers International coordinating its global program Consumers in the Digital Age Mitch Stoltz Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation • Works on the intersection of free speech and copyright and trademark law • Practiced intellectual property law at Constantine Cannon LLP Best, Kathy On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> wrote: Well it was written but some relatively heavies in the legal field. On 3/28/17, 4:42 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised.
There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>> wrote:
(1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759<tel:703%20593%206759>
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Agree with Jeff.
Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important than any other public comment?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>> wrote:
Thanks Mary.
Co-Chairs,
Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database?
I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other issues.
I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow down out work.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%2B1.703.635.7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%2B1.202.549.5079> @Jintlaw
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
Dear all,
During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested document (for #1) and information (for #2).
Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with certain aspects of the TMCH: https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final.p<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F03%2F10%2Ftm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final.p&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69d53554643e48f2818508d476051d8f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636263211732455932&sdata=jf6OVhJSyTANZH3i9YqjVdVuI11xq5Qy2PRyzHHgreY%3D&reserved=0> df.
Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject to ICANN's authorization.
Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN:
1. Extended Claims Services The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party's recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse).
2. Audit Report Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD.
FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program.
Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69d53554643e48f2818508d476051d8f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636263211732455932&sdata=XaKGzBpWy18EJn13NxFu0m%2Bp9V%2B168l1azpsnamLO8c%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69d53554643e48f2818508d476051d8f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636263211732455932&sdata=XaKGzBpWy18EJn13NxFu0m%2Bp9V%2B168l1azpsnamLO8c%3D&reserved=0>
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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69d53554643e48f2818508d476051d8f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636263211732455932&sdata=XaKGzBpWy18EJn13NxFu0m%2Bp9V%2B168l1azpsnamLO8c%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69d53554643e48f2818508d476051d8f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636263211732455932&sdata=XaKGzBpWy18EJn13NxFu0m%2Bp9V%2B168l1azpsnamLO8c%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69d53554643e48f2818508d476051d8f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636263211732455932&sdata=XaKGzBpWy18EJn13NxFu0m%2Bp9V%2B168l1azpsnamLO8c%3D&reserved=0>
J Scott, you are absolutely correct. The question was who wrote it -- not what are the credential of the people who signed on to it. The email equivalent of the commencement parade, with all the scholar/signatories bedecked in their colorful gowns and hats and looking Terribly Impressive, was edifying and amusing but beside the point. It's not surprising that law school professors have the backgrounds that law school professors tend to have. I would also be curious to know how quickly signatures were gathered and what input each signatory had to the text. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:07 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Kathy. However, I think Greg is more interested in who “authored” the actual text of the letter.
J. Scott
[image: ttps://inside.corp.adobe.com/content/dam/brandcenter/images/image002.gif]
*J. Scott Evans*
408.536.5336 <(408)%20536-5336> (tel)
345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
Director, Associate General Counsel
408.709.6162 <(408)%20709-6162> (cell)
San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
Adobe. Make It an Experience.
jsevans@adobe.com
www.adobe.com
*From: *<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman < kathy@kathykleiman.com> *Date: *Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 11:05 AM *To: *"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
<<On 3/28/2017 1:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Do we know who wrote the letter?
Hi Greg, As we know and practice, ICANN has a policy of encouraging outreach and participation - even when people cannot come to our far-flung meetings in Copenhagen and elsewhere. In light of the invitation for outreach and Community participation at both of our meetings in Copenhagen, the timing of this Trademark Scholars letter seems appropriate.
Questions were raised in Copenhagen about the background of signatories, and you raise above. When I returned home, I button-holed an associate to take a fast look. Here is his summary (which I have not touched or edited, except to paste below):
Eve J. Brown Owner, Bricolage Law
§ Director of Entrepreneurship & Innovation Law Clinic at Boston University School of Law
§ Founded a boutique law firm specializing in trademark law
§ Former Director of Intellectual Property & Entrepreneurship Clinic at Suffolk University Law School
Annemarie Bridy
Professor, University of Idaho College of Law & Stanford Center for Internet and Society (CIS)
§ Teaches courses in Internet and intellectual property law
§ Authored several scholarly articles and books on intellectual property
§ Affiliated Fellow at Yale Law School Information Society Project
§ Affiliated Scholar at Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society
§ Affiliated Researcher at University of California Berkeley Law School, Takedown Project
Christine Haight Farley Professor, American University Washington College of Law
§ Teaches multiple courses in trademark law at American University Washington College of Law
§ Former co-director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
§ Several trademark law articles published in scholarly journals
§ Presented as a panelist at several conferences and roundtables on trademark law
Victoria Philips Professor of Practice, American University College of Law
§ Director of the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic
§ Published on intellectual property law by several scholarly journals
§ Presented as a panelist and moderator at several conferences and workshops
Gidget Benitez Program Coordinator –Program on Information Justice & Intellectual Property, American University College of Law
§ Former editor-in-chief and symposium chair of the American University Intellectual Property Brief
William McGeveran Associate Professor of Law and Solly Robins Distinguished Research Fellow, University of Minnesota Law School
§ Teaches Trademark Law and Internet Law at University of Minnesota Law School
§ Several trademark law publications and academic presentations
§ Practiced trademark law at Foley Hoag LLP
Robin Gross Attorney and Executive Director, IP Justice
§ Practices trademark law at the Law Offices of Robin D. Gross
§ Founder and Executive Director of IP Justice
§ Former Staff Attorney for Intellectual Property at Electronic Frontier Foundation
§ Several intellectual property law publications
Rebeca Tushnet Professor, Georgetown Law Center
§ Teaches Trademark and Unfair Competition Law at Georgetown Law Center
§ Clerked for Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter
§ Trademark law publications in numerous law reviews and scholarly journals
§ Practiced trademark law at Debevoise & Plimpton
Art Neill Executive Director, New Media Rights Clinical Professor, California Western School of Law
§ Practices public interest law in the area of intellectual property
§ Named to Fastcase 50, which honors the law's smartest, most courageous innovators, techies, visionaries, and leaders
§ Several publications on intellectual property law
Dev S. Gangjee Associate Professor, University of Oxford
§ Associate Professor in Intellectual Property at University of Oxford
§ Former Rhodes Scholar
§ Several publications on intellectual property law
Robert Burrell Professor of Law, University of Sheffield and University of Melbourne
§ Helped establish a boutique law firm specializing in intellectual property and worked as a registered trademarks attorney
§ Teaches Trade Mark Law in a Branded World
§ Several publications on intellectual property law
Michael Handler Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales
§ Teaches and researches in the field of intellectual property law, focusing on domestic and international aspects of trademark law and the law of geographical indications of origin
Stacey Dogan Professor, Boston University School of Law
§ Teaches Trademark and Unfair Competition at Boston University School of Law
§ Trademark and other intellectual property publications in journals including the Stanford Law Review, Emory Law Journal, Iowa Law Review and Texas Law Review
§ Practiced trademark law at Covington & Burling
Leah Chan Grinvald Professor, Suffolk University Law School
§ Teaches Trademark and Intellectual Property Law at Suffolk University Law School
§ Trademark and other intellectual property publications in journals including the Marquette Law Review and Wisconsin Law Review
§ Advised on trademark law as Global Corporate Counsel at Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc.
Eric Goldman Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law
§ Teaches Intellectual Property at Santa Clara University School of Law
§ Co-director of the High Tech Law Institute
§ Blogs on Internet law matters at the Technology & Marketing Law Blog and the Tertium Quid Blog at Forbes
David G. Post Professor of Law (ret.), Temple University
§ Taught intellectual property courses at Temple University and Georgetown Law Center
§ Clerked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
§ Authored several books, articles, and amicus briefs on intellectual property law
Tamir Israel Staff Lawyer, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)
§ Part Time Professor at University of Ottawa, teaching Regulation of Internet Commerce
§ Staff Lawyer at Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic, which focuses on the intersection of law and technology
Michael Geist
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa
§ Full Professor, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section
§ Named Top 50 Most Influential Intellectual Property Worldwide in 2010 and 2011 by Managing Intellectual Property
§ Received Public Knowledge IP3 Award for Intellectual Property in 2010
§ Authored several books and articles on internet law and intellectual property law
Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst, Electronic Frontier Foundation
§ Works on the international dimensions of issues such as intellectual property, network neutrality, Internet governance, and trade as part of EFF’s international team
§ Worked for Consumers International coordinating its global program Consumers in the Digital Age
Mitch Stoltz Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
§ Works on the intersection of free speech and copyright and trademark law
§ Practiced intellectual property law at Constantine Cannon LLP
Best, Kathy
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
Well it was written but some relatively heavies in the legal field.
On 3/28/17, 4:42 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised.
There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
(1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Agree with Jeff.
Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important than any other public comment?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Thanks Mary.
Co-Chairs,
Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database?
I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other issues.
I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow down out work.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
Dear all,
During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested document (for #1) and information (for #2).
Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with certain aspects of the TMCH: https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_ to_icann_final.p <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org...> df.
Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject to ICANN's authorization.
Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN:
1. Extended Claims Services The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party's recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse).
2. Audit Report Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD.
FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program.
Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Are we to investigate all comments using this same standard? Sent from my iPad
On 28 Mar 2017, at 20:31, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
J Scott, you are absolutely correct. The question was who wrote it -- not what are the credential of the people who signed on to it.
The email equivalent of the commencement parade, with all the scholar/signatories bedecked in their colorful gowns and hats and looking Terribly Impressive, was edifying and amusing but beside the point. It's not surprising that law school professors have the backgrounds that law school professors tend to have.
I would also be curious to know how quickly signatures were gathered and what input each signatory had to the text.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:07 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote: Thanks Kathy. However, I think Greg is more interested in who “authored” the actual text of the letter.
J. Scott
J. Scott Evans
408.536.5336 (tel)
345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
Director, Associate General Counsel
408.709.6162 (cell)
San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
Adobe. Make It an Experience.
jsevans@adobe.com
www.adobe.com
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 11:05 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
<<On 3/28/2017 1:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Do we know who wrote the letter?
Hi Greg, As we know and practice, ICANN has a policy of encouraging outreach and participation - even when people cannot come to our far-flung meetings in Copenhagen and elsewhere. In light of the invitation for outreach and Community participation at both of our meetings in Copenhagen, the timing of this Trademark Scholars letter seems appropriate.
Questions were raised in Copenhagen about the background of signatories, and you raise above. When I returned home, I button-holed an associate to take a fast look. Here is his summary (which I have not touched or edited, except to paste below):
Eve J. Brown Owner, Bricolage Law
§ Director of Entrepreneurship & Innovation Law Clinic at Boston University School of Law
§ Founded a boutique law firm specializing in trademark law
§ Former Director of Intellectual Property & Entrepreneurship Clinic at Suffolk University Law School
Annemarie Bridy
Professor, University of Idaho College of Law & Stanford Center for Internet and Society (CIS)
§ Teaches courses in Internet and intellectual property law
§ Authored several scholarly articles and books on intellectual property
§ Affiliated Fellow at Yale Law School Information Society Project
§ Affiliated Scholar at Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society
§ Affiliated Researcher at University of California Berkeley Law School, Takedown Project
Christine Haight Farley Professor, American University Washington College of Law
§ Teaches multiple courses in trademark law at American University Washington College of Law
§ Former co-director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
§ Several trademark law articles published in scholarly journals
§ Presented as a panelist at several conferences and roundtables on trademark law
Victoria Philips Professor of Practice, American University College of Law
§ Director of the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic
§ Published on intellectual property law by several scholarly journals
§ Presented as a panelist and moderator at several conferences and workshops
Gidget Benitez Program Coordinator –Program on Information Justice & Intellectual Property, American University College of Law
§ Former editor-in-chief and symposium chair of the American University Intellectual Property Brief
William McGeveran Associate Professor of Law and Solly Robins Distinguished Research Fellow, University of Minnesota Law School
§ Teaches Trademark Law and Internet Law at University of Minnesota Law School
§ Several trademark law publications and academic presentations
§ Practiced trademark law at Foley Hoag LLP
Robin Gross Attorney and Executive Director, IP Justice
§ Practices trademark law at the Law Offices of Robin D. Gross
§ Founder and Executive Director of IP Justice
§ Former Staff Attorney for Intellectual Property at Electronic Frontier Foundation
§ Several intellectual property law publications
Rebeca Tushnet Professor, Georgetown Law Center
§ Teaches Trademark and Unfair Competition Law at Georgetown Law Center
§ Clerked for Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter
§ Trademark law publications in numerous law reviews and scholarly journals
§ Practiced trademark law at Debevoise & Plimpton
Art Neill Executive Director, New Media Rights Clinical Professor, California Western School of Law
§ Practices public interest law in the area of intellectual property
§ Named to Fastcase 50, which honors the law's smartest, most courageous innovators, techies, visionaries, and leaders
§ Several publications on intellectual property law
Dev S. Gangjee Associate Professor, University of Oxford
§ Associate Professor in Intellectual Property at University of Oxford
§ Former Rhodes Scholar
§ Several publications on intellectual property law
Robert Burrell Professor of Law, University of Sheffield and University of Melbourne
§ Helped establish a boutique law firm specializing in intellectual property and worked as a registered trademarks attorney
§ Teaches Trade Mark Law in a Branded World
§ Several publications on intellectual property law
Michael Handler Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales
§ Teaches and researches in the field of intellectual property law, focusing on domestic and international aspects of trademark law and the law of geographical indications of origin
Stacey Dogan Professor, Boston University School of Law
§ Teaches Trademark and Unfair Competition at Boston University School of Law
§ Trademark and other intellectual property publications in journals including the Stanford Law Review, Emory Law Journal, Iowa Law Review and Texas Law Review
§ Practiced trademark law at Covington & Burling
Leah Chan Grinvald Professor, Suffolk University Law School
§ Teaches Trademark and Intellectual Property Law at Suffolk University Law School
§ Trademark and other intellectual property publications in journals including the Marquette Law Review and Wisconsin Law Review
§ Advised on trademark law as Global Corporate Counsel at Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc.
Eric Goldman Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law
§ Teaches Intellectual Property at Santa Clara University School of Law
§ Co-director of the High Tech Law Institute
§ Blogs on Internet law matters at the Technology & Marketing Law Blog and the Tertium Quid Blog at Forbes
David G. Post Professor of Law (ret.), Temple University
§ Taught intellectual property courses at Temple University and Georgetown Law Center
§ Clerked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
§ Authored several books, articles, and amicus briefs on intellectual property law
Tamir Israel Staff Lawyer, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)
§ Part Time Professor at University of Ottawa, teaching Regulation of Internet Commerce
§ Staff Lawyer at Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic, which focuses on the intersection of law and technology
Michael Geist
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa
§ Full Professor, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section
§ Named Top 50 Most Influential Intellectual Property Worldwide in 2010 and 2011 by Managing Intellectual Property
§ Received Public Knowledge IP3 Award for Intellectual Property in 2010
§ Authored several books and articles on internet law and intellectual property law
Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst, Electronic Frontier Foundation
§ Works on the international dimensions of issues such as intellectual property, network neutrality, Internet governance, and trade as part of EFF’s international team
§ Worked for Consumers International coordinating its global program Consumers in the Digital Age
Mitch Stoltz Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
§ Works on the intersection of free speech and copyright and trademark law
§ Practiced intellectual property law at Constantine Cannon LLP
Best, Kathy
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
Well it was written but some relatively heavies in the legal field.
On 3/28/17, 4:42 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised.
There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
(1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Agree with Jeff.
Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important than any other public comment?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Thanks Mary.
Co-Chairs,
Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database?
I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other issues.
I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow down out work.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
Dear all,
During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested document (for #1) and information (for #2).
Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with certain aspects of the TMCH: https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final.p df.
Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject to ICANN's authorization.
Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN:
1. Extended Claims Services The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party's recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse).
2. Audit Report Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD.
FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program.
Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
If you want it to have elevated importance, I believe it’s perfectly reasonable to have elevated inquiries. You can’t have it both ways. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:24 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services Are we to investigate all comments using this same standard? Sent from my iPad On 28 Mar 2017, at 20:31, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: J Scott, you are absolutely correct. The question was who wrote it -- not what are the credential of the people who signed on to it. The email equivalent of the commencement parade, with all the scholar/signatories bedecked in their colorful gowns and hats and looking Terribly Impressive, was edifying and amusing but beside the point. It's not surprising that law school professors have the backgrounds that law school professors tend to have. I would also be curious to know how quickly signatures were gathered and what input each signatory had to the text. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:07 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks Kathy. However, I think Greg is more interested in who “authored” the actual text of the letter. J. Scott [ttps://inside.corp.adobe.com/content/dam/brandcenter/images/image002.gif] J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336<tel:(408)%20536-5336> (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162<tel:(408)%20709-6162> (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 11:05 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services <<On 3/28/2017 1:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Do we know who wrote the letter?
Hi Greg, As we know and practice, ICANN has a policy of encouraging outreach and participation - even when people cannot come to our far-flung meetings in Copenhagen and elsewhere. In light of the invitation for outreach and Community participation at both of our meetings in Copenhagen, the timing of this Trademark Scholars letter seems appropriate. Questions were raised in Copenhagen about the background of signatories, and you raise above. When I returned home, I button-holed an associate to take a fast look. Here is his summary (which I have not touched or edited, except to paste below): Eve J. Brown Owner, Bricolage Law • Director of Entrepreneurship & Innovation Law Clinic at Boston University School of Law • Founded a boutique law firm specializing in trademark law • Former Director of Intellectual Property & Entrepreneurship Clinic at Suffolk University Law School Annemarie Bridy Professor, University of Idaho College of Law & Stanford Center for Internet and Society (CIS) • Teaches courses in Internet and intellectual property law • Authored several scholarly articles and books on intellectual property • Affiliated Fellow at Yale Law School Information Society Project • Affiliated Scholar at Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society • Affiliated Researcher at University of California Berkeley Law School, Takedown Project Christine Haight Farley Professor, American University Washington College of Law • Teaches multiple courses in trademark law at American University Washington College of Law • Former co-director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property • Several trademark law articles published in scholarly journals • Presented as a panelist at several conferences and roundtables on trademark law Victoria Philips Professor of Practice, American University College of Law • Director of the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic • Published on intellectual property law by several scholarly journals • Presented as a panelist and moderator at several conferences and workshops Gidget Benitez Program Coordinator –Program on Information Justice & Intellectual Property, American University College of Law • Former editor-in-chief and symposium chair of the American University Intellectual Property Brief William McGeveran Associate Professor of Law and Solly Robins Distinguished Research Fellow, University of Minnesota Law School • Teaches Trademark Law and Internet Law at University of Minnesota Law School • Several trademark law publications and academic presentations • Practiced trademark law at Foley Hoag LLP Robin Gross Attorney and Executive Director, IP Justice • Practices trademark law at the Law Offices of Robin D. Gross • Founder and Executive Director of IP Justice • Former Staff Attorney for Intellectual Property at Electronic Frontier Foundation • Several intellectual property law publications Rebeca Tushnet Professor, Georgetown Law Center • Teaches Trademark and Unfair Competition Law at Georgetown Law Center • Clerked for Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter • Trademark law publications in numerous law reviews and scholarly journals • Practiced trademark law at Debevoise & Plimpton Art Neill Executive Director, New Media Rights Clinical Professor, California Western School of Law • Practices public interest law in the area of intellectual property • Named to Fastcase 50, which honors the law's smartest, most courageous innovators, techies, visionaries, and leaders • Several publications on intellectual property law Dev S. Gangjee Associate Professor, University of Oxford • Associate Professor in Intellectual Property at University of Oxford • Former Rhodes Scholar • Several publications on intellectual property law Robert Burrell Professor of Law, University of Sheffield and University of Melbourne • Helped establish a boutique law firm specializing in intellectual property and worked as a registered trademarks attorney • Teaches Trade Mark Law in a Branded World • Several publications on intellectual property law Michael Handler Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales • Teaches and researches in the field of intellectual property law, focusing on domestic and international aspects of trademark law and the law of geographical indications of origin Stacey Dogan Professor, Boston University School of Law • Teaches Trademark and Unfair Competition at Boston University School of Law • Trademark and other intellectual property publications in journals including the Stanford Law Review, Emory Law Journal, Iowa Law Review and Texas Law Review • Practiced trademark law at Covington & Burling Leah Chan Grinvald Professor, Suffolk University Law School • Teaches Trademark and Intellectual Property Law at Suffolk University Law School • Trademark and other intellectual property publications in journals including the Marquette Law Review and Wisconsin Law Review • Advised on trademark law as Global Corporate Counsel at Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. Eric Goldman Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law • Teaches Intellectual Property at Santa Clara University School of Law • Co-director of the High Tech Law Institute • Blogs on Internet law matters at the Technology & Marketing Law Blog and the Tertium Quid Blog at Forbes David G. Post Professor of Law (ret.), Temple University • Taught intellectual property courses at Temple University and Georgetown Law Center • Clerked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Authored several books, articles, and amicus briefs on intellectual property law Tamir Israel Staff Lawyer, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) • Part Time Professor at University of Ottawa, teaching Regulation of Internet Commerce • Staff Lawyer at Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic, which focuses on the intersection of law and technology Michael Geist Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa • Full Professor, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section • Named Top 50 Most Influential Intellectual Property Worldwide in 2010 and 2011 by Managing Intellectual Property • Received Public Knowledge IP3 Award for Intellectual Property in 2010 • Authored several books and articles on internet law and intellectual property law Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst, Electronic Frontier Foundation • Works on the international dimensions of issues such as intellectual property, network neutrality, Internet governance, and trade as part of EFF’s international team • Worked for Consumers International coordinating its global program Consumers in the Digital Age Mitch Stoltz Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation • Works on the intersection of free speech and copyright and trademark law • Practiced intellectual property law at Constantine Cannon LLP Best, Kathy On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> wrote: Well it was written but some relatively heavies in the legal field. On 3/28/17, 4:42 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties, the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and a better common understanding of the issues raised.
There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>> wrote:
(1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759<tel:703%20593%206759>
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Agree with Jeff.
Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important than any other public comment?
Thanks,
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>> wrote:
Thanks Mary.
Co-Chairs,
Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH database?
I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with respect to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those other issues.
I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and considerably slow down out work.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%2B1.703.635.7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%2B1.202.549.5079> @Jintlaw
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
Dear all,
During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the following two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the requested document (for #1) and information (for #2).
Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with certain aspects of the TMCH: https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final.p<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F03%2F10%2Ftm_scholars_letter_to_icann_final.p&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69d53554643e48f2818508d476051d8f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636263211732455932&sdata=jf6OVhJSyTANZH3i9YqjVdVuI11xq5Qy2PRyzHHgreY%3D&reserved=0> df.
Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN, subject to ICANN's authorization.
Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN:
1. Extended Claims Services The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such party's recorded labels with the TMCH. The extended claims services does not include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse).
2. Audit Report Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Such audit reports shall consist primarily of a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the Trademark Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD.
FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program.
Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69d53554643e48f2818508d476051d8f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636263211732455932&sdata=XaKGzBpWy18EJn13NxFu0m%2Bp9V%2B168l1azpsnamLO8c%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69d53554643e48f2818508d476051d8f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636263211732455932&sdata=XaKGzBpWy18EJn13NxFu0m%2Bp9V%2B168l1azpsnamLO8c%3D&reserved=0>
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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69d53554643e48f2818508d476051d8f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636263211732455932&sdata=XaKGzBpWy18EJn13NxFu0m%2Bp9V%2B168l1azpsnamLO8c%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69d53554643e48f2818508d476051d8f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636263211732455932&sdata=XaKGzBpWy18EJn13NxFu0m%2Bp9V%2B168l1azpsnamLO8c%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69d53554643e48f2818508d476051d8f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636263211732455932&sdata=XaKGzBpWy18EJn13NxFu0m%2Bp9V%2B168l1azpsnamLO8c%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (6)
-
Greg Shatan -
J. Scott Evans -
Kathy Kleiman -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Mary Wong -
Paul Keating