Thanks Lori. We seem to be closing the gap. Given that there is general agreement within the WG that Deloitte accepts design marks too readily, but some remaining disagreement about how to address that, this co-chair hopes that wide support can at least be found for those elements of a response on which there is broad agreement. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:06 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear All, We have had some side line conversations regarding the proposal below. I informed Zak separately and wish to conveny that this is where the IPC currently stands: 1. As per Greg's proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it does not enter TMCH. - IPC agrees. 2. As per Greg's proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH. - IPC agrees. 3. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. - The IPC disagrees as this would undermine the purpose of registering with the TMCH to begin with. 4. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. - The IPC is willing to discuss this proposal. We agree in principle that language that is not well understood or could frighten an unsophisticated applicant should be revised. However, the notice should not be providing legal advice or any advice about effects of certain types of trademark registrations. 5. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical "i", whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. - The IPC does not agree as this outcome is contrary to trademark law. In general, it appears that Greg's proposal addresses 3 and 5. To what degree to people object? We see the proposal as creating a solution for a small problem with significant, unintended consequences. There are objections procedures for domains registered during Sunrise period and we believe that these procedures should be highlighted as remedy for the concerns that registrant's have regarding this issue. Thank you for opening the dialog and we look forward to more discussion where we can find compromise. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:36 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear Co-chairs, Staff and WG members, please see below a revised proposal regarding Question #7 (TMCH/Design Marks): 1. As per Greg's proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it does not enter TMCH. 2. As per Greg's proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH. 3. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. 4. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. 5. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical "i", whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. This proposal has been circulated amongst some stakeholders for feedback (with mixed results), however I am now sharing it with the entire Working Group. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: September-04-19 1:07 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Attached is the redline version. Apologies for only sending it now. Zak Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Sent: September-04-19 12:48 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Support Phil's suggestion and a post call redline per my earlier message. Thank you. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:39 PM To: zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Zak: As we reviewed all the proposals last week, I would suggest that you focus in your presentation on what changes you and Kathy have made to the original and the rationale for doing so. Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:36 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org><mailto:lschulman@inta.org%3e>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Lori, I'm trying to get one together, not sure I will be able to unfortunately. Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org><mailto:lschulman@inta.org%3e> Sent: September-04-19 12:08 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com><mailto:zak@muscovitch.com%3e>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Thank you for this. As this is so close to the call, do you have a redline so we can compare the changes quickly? It would be most helpful to be prepared on a quick notice. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 11:45 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear Co-Chairs, Working Group Members, and Staff, Further to the call last week and further to the below Agenda for today's call, please see the attached updated proposal re: Question #7, from Kathy Kleiman and myself. You will note therein, that the revised proposal contains some revised language, some revised rationale, and a potential alternative to the existing rule for discussion purposes. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: September-03-19 1:02 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the agenda and materials for the WG meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 04 September at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Please note the following actions captured from last week's meeting and sent to the list last week: Actions: 1. Revision of Existing Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members who had previously submitted proposals relating to the Open TMCH Questions (see attached) may offer revised proposals that take into consideration the work completed by the WG since the proposals were originally submitted. 2. New Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members may submit new proposals relating to Charter questions 7, 8, and 10. Please send suggested revisions or new proposals by COB today, 03 September, if at all possible. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions (see attached Summary document. It is the same as the May 2017 version but with formatting for readability and text from relevant TMCH and AGB references): * Question 7 - Proposals from Kathy Kleiman and Greg Shatan * Question 8 - Proposals from Paul McGrady, Kathy Kleiman, Jonathan Agmon, and Claudio di Gangi * If Time Permits: Question 10 - Proposal from Michael Graham 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

I agree with that. Deloitte has come up with guidelines and procedures that show that thought has been put into the process and they are not letting just anything in. We can’t agree on our terminology, how can we expect them to do it? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:56 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; zak@muscovitch.com; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Speaking personally, I’m not sure I agree with the supposition that “Deloitte accepts marks too readily” especially given the lack of clarity on an agreed definition of text only/standard character marks. In fact, that is the very core of the discusions around Kathy and Zak’s proposal. Thank! Brian Sent from my WIPO mobile On 11 September 2019 at 18:37:05 CEST, Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks Lori. We seem to be closing the gap. Given that there is general agreement within the WG that Deloitte accepts design marks too readily, but some remaining disagreement about how to address that, this co-chair hopes that wide support can at least be found for those elements of a response on which there is broad agreement. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:06 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear All, We have had some side line conversations regarding the proposal below. I informed Zak separately and wish to conveny that this is where the IPC currently stands: 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it does not enter TMCH. – IPC agrees. 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH. – IPC agrees. 1. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. – The IPC disagrees as this would undermine the purpose of registering with the TMCH to begin with. 1. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. – The IPC is willing to discuss this proposal. We agree in principle that language that is not well understood or could frighten an unsophisticated applicant should be revised. However, the notice should not be providing legal advice or any advice about effects of certain types of trademark registrations. 1. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. – The IPC does not agree as this outcome is contrary to trademark law. In general, it appears that Greg’s proposal addresses 3 and 5. To what degree to people object? We see the proposal as creating a solution for a small problem with significant, unintended consequences. There are objections procedures for domains registered during Sunrise period and we believe that these procedures should be highlighted as remedy for the concerns that registrant’s have regarding this issue. Thank you for opening the dialog and we look forward to more discussion where we can find compromise. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:36 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear Co-chairs, Staff and WG members, please see below a revised proposal regarding Question #7 (TMCH/Design Marks): 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it does not enter TMCH. 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH. 1. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. 1. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. 1. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. This proposal has been circulated amongst some stakeholders for feedback (with mixed results), however I am now sharing it with the entire Working Group. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: September-04-19 1:07 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Attached is the redline version. Apologies for only sending it now. Zak Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Sent: September-04-19 12:48 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Support Phil’s suggestion and a post call redline per my earlier message. Thank you. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:39 PM To: zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Zak: As we reviewed all the proposals last week, I would suggest that you focus in your presentation on what changes you and Kathy have made to the original and the rationale for doing so. Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:36 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org><mailto:lschulman@inta.org%3e>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Lori, I'm trying to get one together, not sure I will be able to unfortunately. Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org><mailto:lschulman@inta.org%3e> Sent: September-04-19 12:08 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com><mailto:zak@muscovitch.com%3e>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Thank you for this. As this is so close to the call, do you have a redline so we can compare the changes quickly? It would be most helpful to be prepared on a quick notice. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 11:45 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear Co-Chairs, Working Group Members, and Staff, Further to the call last week and further to the below Agenda for today's call, please see the attached updated proposal re: Question #7, from Kathy Kleiman and myself. You will note therein, that the revised proposal contains some revised language, some revised rationale, and a potential alternative to the existing rule for discussion purposes. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: September-03-19 1:02 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the agenda and materials for the WG meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 04 September at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Please note the following actions captured from last week's meeting and sent to the list last week: Actions: 1. Revision of Existing Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members who had previously submitted proposals relating to the Open TMCH Questions (see attached) may offer revised proposals that take into consideration the work completed by the WG since the proposals were originally submitted. 2. New Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members may submit new proposals relating to Charter questions 7, 8, and 10. Please send suggested revisions or new proposals by COB today, 03 September, if at all possible. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions (see attached Summary document. It is the same as the May 2017 version but with formatting for readability and text from relevant TMCH and AGB references): * Question 7 - Proposals from Kathy Kleiman and Greg Shatan * Question 8 - Proposals from Paul McGrady, Kathy Kleiman, Jonathan Agmon, and Claudio di Gangi * If Time Permits: Question 10 - Proposal from Michael Graham 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel <ATT00001.txt> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. ________________________________

To me, “too readily” applies some lack of duty of care as opposed to true interpretative difference. But that is a nit, I do think that we are ready to figure this out. It’s an important issue that does require some solid, unambiguous recommendations from this group. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 1:18 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; zak@muscovitch.com; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Well I seem to recall spending a considerable amount of time asking for at least exemplars of marks but that effort was blocked. I also recall that the operative instructions under which Deloite is acting precludes accepting design marks but that they in fact were accepting them. So….. Not sure what the objection is to the email from Phil. Thanks Paul Keating From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 7:04 PM To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>, Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>, "julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>" <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "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] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks I agree with that. Deloitte has come up with guidelines and procedures that show that thought has been put into the process and they are not letting just anything in. We can’t agree on our terminology, how can we expect them to do it? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:56 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Speaking personally, I’m not sure I agree with the supposition that “Deloitte accepts marks too readily” especially given the lack of clarity on an agreed definition of text only/standard character marks. In fact, that is the very core of the discusions around Kathy and Zak’s proposal. Thank! Brian Sent from my WIPO mobile On 11 September 2019 at 18:37:05 CEST, Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks Lori. We seem to be closing the gap. Given that there is general agreement within the WG that Deloitte accepts design marks too readily, but some remaining disagreement about how to address that, this co-chair hopes that wide support can at least be found for those elements of a response on which there is broad agreement. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:06 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear All, We have had some side line conversations regarding the proposal below. I informed Zak separately and wish to conveny that this is where the IPC currently stands: 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it does not enter TMCH. – IPC agrees. 2. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH. – IPC agrees. 3. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. – The IPC disagrees as this would undermine the purpose of registering with the TMCH to begin with. 4. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. – The IPC is willing to discuss this proposal. We agree in principle that language that is not well understood or could frighten an unsophisticated applicant should be revised. However, the notice should not be providing legal advice or any advice about effects of certain types of trademark registrations. 5. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. – The IPC does not agree as this outcome is contrary to trademark law. In general, it appears that Greg’s proposal addresses 3 and 5. To what degree to people object? We see the proposal as creating a solution for a small problem with significant, unintended consequences. There are objections procedures for domains registered during Sunrise period and we believe that these procedures should be highlighted as remedy for the concerns that registrant’s have regarding this issue. Thank you for opening the dialog and we look forward to more discussion where we can find compromise. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:36 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear Co-chairs, Staff and WG members, please see below a revised proposal regarding Question #7 (TMCH/Design Marks): 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it does not enter TMCH. 2. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH. 3. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. 4. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. 5. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. This proposal has been circulated amongst some stakeholders for feedback (with mixed results), however I am now sharing it with the entire Working Group. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: September-04-19 1:07 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Attached is the redline version. Apologies for only sending it now. Zak Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Sent: September-04-19 12:48 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Support Phil’s suggestion and a post call redline per my earlier message. Thank you. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:39 PM To: zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Zak: As we reviewed all the proposals last week, I would suggest that you focus in your presentation on what changes you and Kathy have made to the original and the rationale for doing so. Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:36 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org><mailto:lschulman@inta.org%3e>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Lori, I'm trying to get one together, not sure I will be able to unfortunately. Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org><mailto:lschulman@inta.org%3e> Sent: September-04-19 12:08 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com><mailto:zak@muscovitch.com%3e>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Thank you for this. As this is so close to the call, do you have a redline so we can compare the changes quickly? It would be most helpful to be prepared on a quick notice. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 11:45 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear Co-Chairs, Working Group Members, and Staff, Further to the call last week and further to the below Agenda for today's call, please see the attached updated proposal re: Question #7, from Kathy Kleiman and myself. You will note therein, that the revised proposal contains some revised language, some revised rationale, and a potential alternative to the existing rule for discussion purposes. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ https://www.muscovitch.com/ https://dnattorney.com/ From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: September-03-19 1:02 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the agenda and materials for the WG meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 04 September at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Please note the following actions captured from last week's meeting and sent to the list last week: Actions: 1. Revision of Existing Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members who had previously submitted proposals relating to the Open TMCH Questions (see attached) may offer revised proposals that take into consideration the work completed by the WG since the proposals were originally submitted. 2. New Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members may submit new proposals relating to Charter questions 7, 8, and 10. Please send suggested revisions or new proposals by COB today, 03 September, if at all possible. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions (see attached Summary document. It is the same as the May 2017 version but with formatting for readability and text from relevant TMCH and AGB references): * Question 7 - Proposals from Kathy Kleiman and Greg Shatan * Question 8 - Proposals from Paul McGrady, Kathy Kleiman, Jonathan Agmon, and Claudio di Gangi * If Time Permits: Question 10 - Proposal from Michael Graham 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel <ATT00001.txt> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________

The answers from Deloitte don’t reflect this claim. They reflect a policy of putting in whatever can fit, extracting any text at all from any mark, disclaimed or not. That’s not indicative of any thought or policy based in substance. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. On Sep 11, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> wrote: I agree with that. Deloitte has come up with guidelines and procedures that show that thought has been put into the process and they are not letting just anything in. We can’t agree on our terminology, how can we expect them to do it? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:56 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Speaking personally, I’m not sure I agree with the supposition that “Deloitte accepts marks too readily” especially given the lack of clarity on an agreed definition of text only/standard character marks. In fact, that is the very core of the discusions around Kathy and Zak’s proposal. Thank! Brian Sent from my WIPO mobile On 11 September 2019 at 18:37:05 CEST, Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks Lori. We seem to be closing the gap. Given that there is general agreement within the WG that Deloitte accepts design marks too readily, but some remaining disagreement about how to address that, this co-chair hopes that wide support can at least be found for those elements of a response on which there is broad agreement. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:06 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear All, We have had some side line conversations regarding the proposal below. I informed Zak separately and wish to conveny that this is where the IPC currently stands: 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it does not enter TMCH. – IPC agrees. 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH. – IPC agrees. 1. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. – The IPC disagrees as this would undermine the purpose of registering with the TMCH to begin with. 1. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. – The IPC is willing to discuss this proposal. We agree in principle that language that is not well understood or could frighten an unsophisticated applicant should be revised. However, the notice should not be providing legal advice or any advice about effects of certain types of trademark registrations. 1. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. – The IPC does not agree as this outcome is contrary to trademark law. In general, it appears that Greg’s proposal addresses 3 and 5. To what degree to people object? We see the proposal as creating a solution for a small problem with significant, unintended consequences. There are objections procedures for domains registered during Sunrise period and we believe that these procedures should be highlighted as remedy for the concerns that registrant’s have regarding this issue. Thank you for opening the dialog and we look forward to more discussion where we can find compromise. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:36 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear Co-chairs, Staff and WG members, please see below a revised proposal regarding Question #7 (TMCH/Design Marks): 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it does not enter TMCH. 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH. 1. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. 1. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. 1. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. This proposal has been circulated amongst some stakeholders for feedback (with mixed results), however I am now sharing it with the entire Working Group. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=HZ02YdRqjQBgU6fLogiovdeBA21DjwY4Dkhj8GAnclI&e=> https://www.muscovitch.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=fjM2XNOL_ML8yHd0Lywfte_dmsjkjoW0J6qy03dqpxw&e=> https://dnattorney.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=Rn0_P9rODOHwXkR0naQnzvxYkkqjpJpA7MJNk5E45n0&e=> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: September-04-19 1:07 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Attached is the redline version. Apologies for only sending it now. Zak Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=HZ02YdRqjQBgU6fLogiovdeBA21DjwY4Dkhj8GAnclI&e=> https://www.muscovitch.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=fjM2XNOL_ML8yHd0Lywfte_dmsjkjoW0J6qy03dqpxw&e=> https://dnattorney.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=Rn0_P9rODOHwXkR0naQnzvxYkkqjpJpA7MJNk5E45n0&e=> From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Sent: September-04-19 12:48 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Support Phil’s suggestion and a post call redline per my earlier message. Thank you. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:39 PM To: zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Zak: As we reviewed all the proposals last week, I would suggest that you focus in your presentation on what changes you and Kathy have made to the original and the rationale for doing so. Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:36 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org><mailto:lschulman@inta.org%3e>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Lori, I'm trying to get one together, not sure I will be able to unfortunately. Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=HZ02YdRqjQBgU6fLogiovdeBA21DjwY4Dkhj8GAnclI&e=> https://www.muscovitch.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=fjM2XNOL_ML8yHd0Lywfte_dmsjkjoW0J6qy03dqpxw&e=> https://dnattorney.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=Rn0_P9rODOHwXkR0naQnzvxYkkqjpJpA7MJNk5E45n0&e=> From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org><mailto:lschulman@inta.org%3e> Sent: September-04-19 12:08 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com><mailto:zak@muscovitch.com%3e>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Thank you for this. As this is so close to the call, do you have a redline so we can compare the changes quickly? It would be most helpful to be prepared on a quick notice. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 11:45 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear Co-Chairs, Working Group Members, and Staff, Further to the call last week and further to the below Agenda for today's call, please see the attached updated proposal re: Question #7, from Kathy Kleiman and myself. You will note therein, that the revised proposal contains some revised language, some revised rationale, and a potential alternative to the existing rule for discussion purposes. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=HZ02YdRqjQBgU6fLogiovdeBA21DjwY4Dkhj8GAnclI&e=> https://www.muscovitch.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=fjM2XNOL_ML8yHd0Lywfte_dmsjkjoW0J6qy03dqpxw&e=> https://dnattorney.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=Rn0_P9rODOHwXkR0naQnzvxYkkqjpJpA7MJNk5E45n0&e=> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: September-03-19 1:02 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the agenda and materials for the WG meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 04 September at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Please note the following actions captured from last week's meeting and sent to the list last week: Actions: 1. Revision of Existing Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members who had previously submitted proposals relating to the Open TMCH Questions (see attached) may offer revised proposals that take into consideration the work completed by the WG since the proposals were originally submitted. 2. New Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members may submit new proposals relating to Charter questions 7, 8, and 10. Please send suggested revisions or new proposals by COB today, 03 September, if at all possible. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions (see attached Summary document. It is the same as the May 2017 version but with formatting for readability and text from relevant TMCH and AGB references): * Question 7 - Proposals from Kathy Kleiman and Greg Shatan * Question 8 - Proposals from Paul McGrady, Kathy Kleiman, Jonathan Agmon, and Claudio di Gangi * If Time Permits: Question 10 - Proposal from Michael Graham 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel <ATT00001.txt> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

In a personal capacity – before we consider asking Deloitte to speak with us, which will further prolong discussion and deliberation, why don’t we ask if there has been any material change in their practice since they answered our questions in the past? If there is no change then no point in verbal engagement. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of claudio di gangi Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 2:57 PM To: Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks I agree with Lori that Deloitte is doing their absolute best to follow "the letter of the law" so to speak, i.e. what is contained in the Applicant Guidebook, and that they have generated accurate results in that regard. I understand that we may have different points of view, so this would be another area where it would be benefit from Deloitte being invited to participate on our call next week to inform our discussions on the current state of play, implications of any potential changes from a policy and implementation perspective, and so we are all clear on where things stand on questions #7 and #8. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:38 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu<mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu>> wrote: The answers from Deloitte don’t reflect this claim. They reflect a policy of putting in whatever can fit, extracting any text at all from any mark, disclaimed or not. That’s not indicative of any thought or policy based in substance. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. On Sep 11, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> wrote: I agree with that. Deloitte has come up with guidelines and procedures that show that thought has been put into the process and they are not letting just anything in. We can’t agree on our terminology, how can we expect them to do it? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:56 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Speaking personally, I’m not sure I agree with the supposition that “Deloitte accepts marks too readily” especially given the lack of clarity on an agreed definition of text only/standard character marks. In fact, that is the very core of the discusions around Kathy and Zak’s proposal. Thank! Brian Sent from my WIPO mobile On 11 September 2019 at 18:37:05 CEST, Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks Lori. We seem to be closing the gap. Given that there is general agreement within the WG that Deloitte accepts design marks too readily, but some remaining disagreement about how to address that, this co-chair hopes that wide support can at least be found for those elements of a response on which there is broad agreement. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:06 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear All, We have had some side line conversations regarding the proposal below. I informed Zak separately and wish to conveny that this is where the IPC currently stands: 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it does not enter TMCH. – IPC agrees. 2. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH. – IPC agrees. 3. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. – The IPC disagrees as this would undermine the purpose of registering with the TMCH to begin with. 4. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. – The IPC is willing to discuss this proposal. We agree in principle that language that is not well understood or could frighten an unsophisticated applicant should be revised. However, the notice should not be providing legal advice or any advice about effects of certain types of trademark registrations. 5. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. – The IPC does not agree as this outcome is contrary to trademark law. In general, it appears that Greg’s proposal addresses 3 and 5. To what degree to people object? We see the proposal as creating a solution for a small problem with significant, unintended consequences. There are objections procedures for domains registered during Sunrise period and we believe that these procedures should be highlighted as remedy for the concerns that registrant’s have regarding this issue. Thank you for opening the dialog and we look forward to more discussion where we can find compromise. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:36 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear Co-chairs, Staff and WG members, please see below a revised proposal regarding Question #7 (TMCH/Design Marks): 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it does not enter TMCH. 2. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH. 3. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. 4. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. 5. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. This proposal has been circulated amongst some stakeholders for feedback (with mixed results), however I am now sharing it with the entire Working Group. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=HZ02YdRqjQBgU6fLogiovdeBA21DjwY4Dkhj8GAnclI&e=> https://www.muscovitch.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=fjM2XNOL_ML8yHd0Lywfte_dmsjkjoW0J6qy03dqpxw&e=> https://dnattorney.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=Rn0_P9rODOHwXkR0naQnzvxYkkqjpJpA7MJNk5E45n0&e=> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: September-04-19 1:07 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Attached is the redline version. Apologies for only sending it now. Zak Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=HZ02YdRqjQBgU6fLogiovdeBA21DjwY4Dkhj8GAnclI&e=> https://www.muscovitch.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=fjM2XNOL_ML8yHd0Lywfte_dmsjkjoW0J6qy03dqpxw&e=> https://dnattorney.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=Rn0_P9rODOHwXkR0naQnzvxYkkqjpJpA7MJNk5E45n0&e=> From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Sent: September-04-19 12:48 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Support Phil’s suggestion and a post call redline per my earlier message. Thank you. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:39 PM To: zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Zak: As we reviewed all the proposals last week, I would suggest that you focus in your presentation on what changes you and Kathy have made to the original and the rationale for doing so. Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:36 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org><mailto:lschulman@inta.org%3e>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Lori, I'm trying to get one together, not sure I will be able to unfortunately. Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=HZ02YdRqjQBgU6fLogiovdeBA21DjwY4Dkhj8GAnclI&e=> https://www.muscovitch.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=fjM2XNOL_ML8yHd0Lywfte_dmsjkjoW0J6qy03dqpxw&e=> https://dnattorney.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=Rn0_P9rODOHwXkR0naQnzvxYkkqjpJpA7MJNk5E45n0&e=> From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org><mailto:lschulman@inta.org%3e> Sent: September-04-19 12:08 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com><mailto:zak@muscovitch.com%3e>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Thank you for this. As this is so close to the call, do you have a redline so we can compare the changes quickly? It would be most helpful to be prepared on a quick notice. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 11:45 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org%3e>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear Co-Chairs, Working Group Members, and Staff, Further to the call last week and further to the below Agenda for today's call, please see the attached updated proposal re: Question #7, from Kathy Kleiman and myself. You will note therein, that the revised proposal contains some revised language, some revised rationale, and a potential alternative to the existing rule for discussion purposes. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak@muscovitch.com<mailto:zak@muscovitch.com> 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=HZ02YdRqjQBgU6fLogiovdeBA21DjwY4Dkhj8GAnclI&e=> https://www.muscovitch.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=fjM2XNOL_ML8yHd0Lywfte_dmsjkjoW0J6qy03dqpxw&e=> https://dnattorney.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=DhCGQiTVkZTqX3LHNownJV8ZF86H8imYYC4PDSpak3c&s=Rn0_P9rODOHwXkR0naQnzvxYkkqjpJpA7MJNk5E45n0&e=> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: September-03-19 1:02 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the agenda and materials for the WG meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 04 September at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Please note the following actions captured from last week's meeting and sent to the list last week: Actions: 1. Revision of Existing Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members who had previously submitted proposals relating to the Open TMCH Questions (see attached) may offer revised proposals that take into consideration the work completed by the WG since the proposals were originally submitted. 2. New Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members may submit new proposals relating to Charter questions 7, 8, and 10. Please send suggested revisions or new proposals by COB today, 03 September, if at all possible. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions (see attached Summary document. It is the same as the May 2017 version but with formatting for readability and text from relevant TMCH and AGB references): * Question 7 - Proposals from Kathy Kleiman and Greg Shatan * Question 8 - Proposals from Paul McGrady, Kathy Kleiman, Jonathan Agmon, and Claudio di Gangi * If Time Permits: Question 10 - Proposal from Michael Graham 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel <ATT00001.txt> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Michael, I believe they do have an absolute and important incentive to be in compliance with all the rules - so they can continue to manage the database going forward from an ICANN contractual perspective. Best, Claudio On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:59 PM Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com> wrote:

It should be noted that this is also completely in line with Deloitte's incentive structure. There's no direct benefit to careful scrutiny - so why would they apply a difficult test for admission?

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:38 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:

...

The answers from Deloitte don’t reflect this claim. They reflect a

policy of putting in whatever can fit, extracting any text at all from any mark, disclaimed or not. That’s not indicative of any thought or policy based in substance.

...

Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School

Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.

On Sep 11, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> wrote:

I agree with that. Deloitte has come up with guidelines and procedures

that show that thought has been put into the process and they are not letting just anything in. We can’t agree on our terminology, how can we expect them to do it?

...

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:56 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; Lori Schulman <

lschulman@inta.org>; zak@muscovitch.com; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org

...

Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks

Speaking personally, I’m not sure I agree with the supposition that “Deloitte accepts marks too readily” especially given the lack of clarity on an agreed definition of text only/standard character marks. In fact, that is the very core of the discusions around Kathy and Zak’s proposal.

Thank!

Brian

Sent from my WIPO mobile

On 11 September 2019 at 18:37:05 CEST, Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks Lori.

We seem to be closing the gap. Given that there is general agreement within the WG that Deloitte accepts design marks too readily, but some remaining disagreement about how to address that, this co-chair hopes that wide support can at least be found for those elements of a response on which there is broad agreement.

Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190

703-948-4648/Direct

571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:06 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks

Dear All,

We have had some side line conversations regarding the proposal below. I informed Zak separately and wish to conveny that this is where the IPC currently stands:

As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it does not enter TMCH. – IPC agrees.

As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH. – IPC agrees.

Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. – The IPC disagrees as this would undermine the purpose of registering with the TMCH to begin with.

The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. – The IPC is willing to discuss this proposal. We agree in principle that language that is not well understood or could frighten an unsophisticated applicant should be revised. However, the notice should not be providing legal advice or any advice about effects of certain types of trademark registrations.

Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. – The IPC does not agree as this outcome is contrary to trademark law.

In general, it appears that Greg’s proposal addresses 3 and 5. To what degree to people object? We see the proposal as creating a solution for a small problem with significant, unintended consequences.

There are objections procedures for domains registered during Sunrise period and we believe that these procedures should be highlighted as remedy for the concerns that registrant’s have regarding this issue.

Thank you for opening the dialog and we look forward to more discussion where we can find compromise.

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:36 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks

Dear Co-chairs, Staff and WG members, please see below a revised proposal regarding Question #7 (TMCH/Design Marks):

As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it does not enter TMCH.

As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH.

Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority.

The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect.

Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH.

This proposal has been circulated amongst some stakeholders for feedback (with mixed results), however I am now sharing it with the entire Working Group.

Zak Muscovitch

General Counsel, ICA

Muscovitch Law P.C.

zak@muscovitch.com

1-866-654-7129

416-924-5084

http://www.trademarks-canada.com/

https://www.muscovitch.com/

https://dnattorney.com/

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: September-04-19 1:07 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; Corwin, Philip < pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Attached is the redline version. Apologies for only sending it now.

Zak

Muscovitch Law P.C.

zak@muscovitch.com

1-866-654-7129

416-924-5084

http://www.trademarks-canada.com/

https://www.muscovitch.com/

https://dnattorney.com/

From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Sent: September-04-19 12:48 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; Zak Muscovitch < zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Hi,

Support Phil’s suggestion and a post call redline per my earlier message.

Thank you.

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:39 PM To: zak@muscovitch.com; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Zak:

As we reviewed all the proposals last week, I would suggest that you focus in your presentation on what changes you and Kathy have made to the original and the rationale for doing so.

Philip

Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190

703-948-4648/Direct

571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:36 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Lori, I'm trying to get one together, not sure I will be able to unfortunately.

Muscovitch Law P.C.

zak@muscovitch.com

1-866-654-7129

416-924-5084

http://www.trademarks-canada.com/

https://www.muscovitch.com/

https://dnattorney.com/

From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Sent: September-04-19 12:08 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com>; Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Hi,

Thank you for this. As this is so close to the call, do you have a redline so we can compare the changes quickly? It would be most helpful to be prepared on a quick notice.

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 11:45 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Dear Co-Chairs, Working Group Members, and Staff,

Further to the call last week and further to the below Agenda for today's call, please see the attached updated proposal re: Question #7, from Kathy Kleiman and myself.

You will note therein, that the revised proposal contains some revised language, some revised rationale, and a potential alternative to the existing rule for discussion purposes.

Zak Muscovitch

General Counsel, ICA

Muscovitch Law P.C.

zak@muscovitch.com

1-866-654-7129

416-924-5084

http://www.trademarks-canada.com/

https://www.muscovitch.com/

https://dnattorney.com/

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: September-03-19 1:02 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Dear RPM WG members,

Please find the agenda and materials for the WG meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 04 September at 17:00-18:30 UTC.

Please note the following actions captured from last week's meeting and sent to the list last week:

Actions:

1. Revision of Existing Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members who had previously submitted proposals relating to the Open TMCH Questions (see attached) may offer revised proposals that take into consideration the work completed by the WG since the proposals were originally submitted. 2. New Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members may submit new proposals relating to Charter questions 7, 8, and 10.

Please send suggested revisions or new proposals by COB today, 03 September, if at all possible.

Proposed Agenda:

1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions (see attached Summary document. It is the same as the May 2017 version but with formatting for readability and text from relevant TMCH and AGB references):

* Question 7 - Proposals from Kathy Kleiman and Greg Shatan * Question 8 - Proposals from Paul McGrady, Kathy Kleiman, Jonathan Agmon, and Claudio di Gangi * If Time Permits: Question 10 - Proposal from Michael Graham

3. AOB

Best Regards,

Mary, Julie, Ariel

<ATT00001.txt>

World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.

_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

---

GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Rebecca, There is in fact 'market demand' to abusively register these strings, which is why GIs are protected under certain ccTLD Dispute Resolution Procedures (in countries where GIs are protected as a separate form of a source identifier or IP) and under national laws, i.e. judicial remedies. This practice harms consumers because they are confused as to the source or origin of the product or service, or when these domains are used to host websites that sell counterfeit goods of this nature, which may rise to the level of criminal conduct leading to significant consumer harm. Existing practices aside (which are based on the interpretation of the current rules - and our discussion today reflected those rules are ambiguous due to non-exact definitional legal language), we are at the stage of the review where we can clarify existing and/or propose new rules and collaborate with Deloitte in doing so, which I think will help all of us going forward. Best, Claudio On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:47 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:

Pretty clearly they don’t comply fully, though. Sunk costs work on both sides and ICANN will tolerate a lot of divergence (and probably should at least tell Deloitte to fix the problems rather than dumping it given those sunk costs). No presumption of compliance is justified where serious questions have been raised and Deloitte has told us clearly that they’re taking anything they can.

Continuing from the call:

https://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/content/registered-trademarks is what they tell people. Note that there’s no indication that “other IP” gets different treatment from registered marks for Sunrise/Claims purposes. The hypotheticals discussed on the call, even if possible, don’t seem to exist (assuming truthful advertising). If they are merely hypothetical at this point, it makes even more sense to keep them out of the TMCH to be separately implemented, by Deloitte or otherwise, if there is market demand.

Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School

Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.

On Sep 11, 2019, at 3:04 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:

Michael,

I believe they do have an absolute and important incentive to be in compliance with all the rules - so they can continue to manage the database going forward from an ICANN contractual perspective.

Best, Claudio

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:59 PM Michael Karanicolas < mkaranicolas@gmail.com> wrote:

...

It should be noted that this is also completely in line with Deloitte's incentive structure. There's no direct benefit to careful scrutiny - so why would they apply a difficult test for admission?

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:38 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:

...

The answers from Deloitte don’t reflect this claim. They reflect a

policy of putting in whatever can fit, extracting any text at all from any mark, disclaimed or not. That’s not indicative of any thought or policy based in substance.

...

Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School

Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.

On Sep 11, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> wrote:

I agree with that. Deloitte has come up with guidelines and procedures

that show that thought has been put into the process and they are not letting just anything in. We can’t agree on our terminology, how can we expect them to do it?

...

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:56 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; Lori Schulman <

lschulman@inta.org>; zak@muscovitch.com; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org

...

Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks

Speaking personally, I’m not sure I agree with the supposition that “Deloitte accepts marks too readily” especially given the lack of clarity on an agreed definition of text only/standard character marks. In fact, that is the very core of the discusions around Kathy and Zak’s proposal.

Thank!

Brian

Sent from my WIPO mobile

On 11 September 2019 at 18:37:05 CEST, Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks Lori.

We seem to be closing the gap. Given that there is general agreement within the WG that Deloitte accepts design marks too readily, but some remaining disagreement about how to address that, this co-chair hopes that wide support can at least be found for those elements of a response on which there is broad agreement.

Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190

703-948-4648/Direct

571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:06 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks

Dear All,

We have had some side line conversations regarding the proposal below. I informed Zak separately and wish to conveny that this is where the IPC currently stands:

As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims

...

all<< words, it does not enter TMCH. – IPC agrees.

As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH. – IPC agrees.

Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. – The IPC disagrees as this would undermine the purpose of registering with the TMCH to begin with.

The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. – The IPC is willing to discuss this proposal. We agree in principle that language that is not well understood or could frighten an unsophisticated applicant should be revised. However, the notice should not be providing legal advice or any advice about effects of certain types of trademark registrations.

Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. – The IPC does not agree as this outcome is contrary to trademark law.

In general, it appears that Greg’s proposal addresses 3 and 5. To what degree to people object? We see the proposal as creating a solution for a small problem with significant, unintended consequences.

There are objections procedures for domains registered during Sunrise period and we believe that these procedures should be highlighted as remedy for the concerns that registrant’s have regarding this issue.

Thank you for opening the dialog and we look forward to more discussion where we can find compromise.

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:36 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks

Dear Co-chairs, Staff and WG members, please see below a revised proposal regarding Question #7 (TMCH/Design Marks):

As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims

...

all<< words, it does not enter TMCH.

As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH.

Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority.

The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect.

Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH.

This proposal has been circulated amongst some stakeholders for feedback (with mixed results), however I am now sharing it with the entire Working Group.

Zak Muscovitch

General Counsel, ICA

Muscovitch Law P.C.

zak@muscovitch.com

1-866-654-7129

416-924-5084

http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada....>

https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=D...>

https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFa...>

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: September-04-19 1:07 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; Corwin, Philip < pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Attached is the redline version. Apologies for only sending it now.

Zak

Muscovitch Law P.C.

zak@muscovitch.com

1-866-654-7129

416-924-5084

http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada....>

https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=D...>

https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFa...>

From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Sent: September-04-19 12:48 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; Zak Muscovitch < zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Hi,

Support Phil’s suggestion and a post call redline per my earlier message.

Thank you.

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:39 PM To: zak@muscovitch.com; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Zak:

As we reviewed all the proposals last week, I would suggest that you focus in your presentation on what changes you and Kathy have made to the original and the rationale for doing so.

Philip

Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190

703-948-4648/Direct

571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:36 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Lori, I'm trying to get one together, not sure I will be able to unfortunately.

Muscovitch Law P.C.

zak@muscovitch.com

1-866-654-7129

416-924-5084

http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada....>

https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=D...>

https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFa...>

From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Sent: September-04-19 12:08 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com>; Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Hi,

Thank you for this. As this is so close to the call, do you have a redline so we can compare the changes quickly? It would be most helpful to be prepared on a quick notice.

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 11:45 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Dear Co-Chairs, Working Group Members, and Staff,

Further to the call last week and further to the below Agenda for today's call, please see the attached updated proposal re: Question #7, from Kathy Kleiman and myself.

You will note therein, that the revised proposal contains some revised language, some revised rationale, and a potential alternative to the existing rule for discussion purposes.

Zak Muscovitch

General Counsel, ICA

Muscovitch Law P.C.

zak@muscovitch.com

1-866-654-7129

416-924-5084

http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada....>

https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=D...>

https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMFa...>

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: September-03-19 1:02 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Dear RPM WG members,

Please find the agenda and materials for the WG meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 04 September at 17:00-18:30 UTC.

Please note the following actions captured from last week's meeting and sent to the list last week:

Actions:

1. Revision of Existing Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members who had previously submitted proposals relating to the Open TMCH Questions (see attached) may offer revised proposals that take into consideration the work completed by the WG since the proposals were originally submitted. 2. New Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members may submit new proposals relating to Charter questions 7, 8, and 10.

Please send suggested revisions or new proposals by COB today, 03 September, if at all possible.

Proposed Agenda:

1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions (see attached Summary document. It is the same as the May 2017 version but with formatting for readability and text from relevant TMCH and AGB references):

* Question 7 - Proposals from Kathy Kleiman and Greg Shatan * Question 8 - Proposals from Paul McGrady, Kathy Kleiman, Jonathan Agmon, and Claudio di Gangi * If Time Permits: Question 10 - Proposal from Michael Graham

3. AOB

Best Regards,

Mary, Julie, Ariel

<ATT00001.txt>

World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.

_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

---

GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Michael,

From my perspective, for any accounting company, especially a firm as large and well-known as Deloitte, there are significant business reputational equities when carrying out validation or accounting functions properly. In part, this is how businesses build goodwill and reputation in their marks for their goods and services.

For example, you mentioned Deloitte's revenue model. Rhetorical question: what percentage of Deloitte's overall revenue would you estimate is represented by managing the TMCH in comparison to the firm's general revenue? For general revenue, I just performed an online search and came across the following for fiscal year ending in May 2018: US$43.2 billion. Overall, there are approx. 45,000 trademark records and around 80 GIs (0.001%) in the TMCH, along with a few ancillary services. With that said, I think it would only be fair to invite the Clearinghouse reps to join our call next week to provide them an opportunity to respond to any of these expressed views as they may see appropriate. Best regards, Claudio On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 7:03 PM Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, this argument that Deloitte would rigorously enforce the rules for fear of losing their contract is predicated on there being some form of meaningful auditing or oversight process - which doesn't exist. The closest thing would be this working group - and we don't have any idea what's even in the TMCH!

On the other hand, Deloitte's revenue model is explicitly tied to the volume of material they allow into the database. The more marks get registered, the more money they make, giving them a very direct incentive to take a lax approach.

Given these incentive structures, it's hardly surprising to see Deloitte approaching their evaluation process the way they have.

Michael Karanicolas Wikimedia Fellow Yale Law School

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:47 PM Tushnet, Rebecca

<rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:

...

Pretty clearly they don’t comply fully, though. Sunk costs work on both

sides and ICANN will tolerate a lot of divergence (and probably should at least tell Deloitte to fix the problems rather than dumping it given those sunk costs). No presumption of compliance is justified where serious questions have been raised and Deloitte has told us clearly that they’re taking anything they can.

...

Continuing from the call:

https://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/content/registered-trademarks

is what they tell people. Note that there’s no indication that “other IP” gets different treatment from registered marks for Sunrise/Claims purposes. The hypotheticals discussed on the call, even if possible, don’t seem to exist (assuming truthful advertising). If they are merely hypothetical at this point, it makes even more sense to keep them out of the TMCH to be separately implemented, by Deloitte or otherwise, if there is market demand.

...

Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School

Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.

On Sep 11, 2019, at 3:04 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com>

wrote:

...

Michael,

I believe they do have an absolute and important incentive to be in

compliance with all the rules - so they can continue to manage the database going forward from an ICANN contractual perspective.

...

Best, Claudio

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:59 PM Michael Karanicolas <

mkaranicolas@gmail.com> wrote:

...

...

It should be noted that this is also completely in line with Deloitte's incentive structure. There's no direct benefit to careful scrutiny - so why would they apply a difficult test for admission?

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:38 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:

...

The answers from Deloitte don’t reflect this claim. They reflect a

policy of putting in whatever can fit, extracting any text at all from any mark, disclaimed or not. That’s not indicative of any thought or policy based in substance.

...

...

Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School

Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.

On Sep 11, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>

wrote:

...

I agree with that. Deloitte has come up with guidelines and

procedures that show that thought has been put into the process and they are not letting just anything in. We can’t agree on our terminology, how can we expect them to do it?

...

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:56 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; Lori Schulman <

lschulman@inta.org>; zak@muscovitch.com; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org

...

Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks

Speaking personally, I’m not sure I agree with the supposition that “Deloitte accepts marks too readily” especially given the lack of clarity on an agreed definition of text only/standard character marks. In fact, that is the very core of the discusions around Kathy and Zak’s proposal.

Thank!

Brian

Sent from my WIPO mobile

On 11 September 2019 at 18:37:05 CEST, Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks Lori.

We seem to be closing the gap. Given that there is general agreement within the WG that Deloitte accepts design marks too readily, but some remaining disagreement about how to address that, this co-chair hopes that wide support can at least be found for those elements of a response on which there is broad agreement.

Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190

703-948-4648/Direct

571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:06 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks

Dear All,

We have had some side line conversations regarding the proposal below. I informed Zak separately and wish to conveny that this is where the IPC currently stands:

As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims all<< words, it does not enter TMCH. – IPC agrees.

As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH. – IPC agrees.

Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. – The IPC disagrees as this would undermine the purpose of registering with the TMCH to begin with.

The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. – The IPC is willing to discuss this proposal. We agree in principle that language that is not well understood or could frighten an unsophisticated applicant should be revised. However, the notice should not be providing legal advice or any advice about effects of certain types of trademark registrations.

Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. – The IPC does not agree as this outcome is contrary to trademark law.

In general, it appears that Greg’s proposal addresses 3 and 5. To what degree to people object? We see the proposal as creating a solution for a small problem with significant, unintended consequences.

There are objections procedures for domains registered during Sunrise period and we believe that these procedures should be highlighted as remedy for the concerns that registrant’s have regarding this issue.

Thank you for opening the dialog and we look forward to more discussion where we can find compromise.

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:36 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks

Dear Co-chairs, Staff and WG members, please see below a revised proposal regarding Question #7 (TMCH/Design Marks):

As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims all<< words, it does not enter TMCH.

As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims some but not all words<< it does enters the TMCH.

Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority.

The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect.

Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH.

This proposal has been circulated amongst some stakeholders for feedback (with mixed results), however I am now sharing it with the entire Working Group.

Zak Muscovitch

General Counsel, ICA

Muscovitch Law P.C.

zak@muscovitch.com

1-866-654-7129

416-924-5084

http://www.trademarks-canada.com/

https://www.muscovitch.com/

https://dnattorney.com/

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: September-04-19 1:07 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; Corwin, Philip < pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Attached is the redline version. Apologies for only sending it now.

Zak

Muscovitch Law P.C.

zak@muscovitch.com

1-866-654-7129

416-924-5084

http://www.trademarks-canada.com/

https://www.muscovitch.com/

https://dnattorney.com/

From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Sent: September-04-19 12:48 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; Zak Muscovitch < zak@muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Hi,

Support Phil’s suggestion and a post call redline per my earlier message.

Thank you.

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:39 PM To: zak@muscovitch.com; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Zak:

As we reviewed all the proposals last week, I would suggest that you focus in your presentation on what changes you and Kathy have made to the original and the rationale for doing so.

Philip

Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190

703-948-4648/Direct

571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:36 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Lori, I'm trying to get one together, not sure I will be able to unfortunately.

Muscovitch Law P.C.

zak@muscovitch.com

1-866-654-7129

416-924-5084

http://www.trademarks-canada.com/

https://www.muscovitch.com/

https://dnattorney.com/

From: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Sent: September-04-19 12:08 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com>; Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Hi,

Thank you for this. As this is so close to the call, do you have a redline so we can compare the changes quickly? It would be most helpful to be prepared on a quick notice.

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 11:45 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Dear Co-Chairs, Working Group Members, and Staff,

Further to the call last week and further to the below Agenda for today's call, please see the attached updated proposal re: Question #7, from Kathy Kleiman and myself.

You will note therein, that the revised proposal contains some revised language, some revised rationale, and a potential alternative to the existing rule for discussion purposes.

Zak Muscovitch

General Counsel, ICA

Muscovitch Law P.C.

zak@muscovitch.com

1-866-654-7129

416-924-5084

http://www.trademarks-canada.com/

https://www.muscovitch.com/

https://dnattorney.com/

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: September-03-19 1:02 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Dear RPM WG members,

Please find the agenda and materials for the WG meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 04 September at 17:00-18:30 UTC.

Please note the following actions captured from last week's meeting and sent to the list last week:

Actions:

1. Revision of Existing Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members who had previously submitted proposals relating to the Open TMCH Questions (see attached) may offer revised proposals that take into consideration the work completed by the WG since the proposals were originally submitted. 2. New Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members may submit new proposals relating to Charter questions 7, 8, and 10.

Please send suggested revisions or new proposals by COB today, 03 September, if at all possible.

Proposed Agenda:

1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions (see attached Summary document. It is the same as the May 2017 version but with formatting for readability and text from relevant TMCH and AGB references):

* Question 7 - Proposals from Kathy Kleiman and Greg Shatan * Question 8 - Proposals from Paul McGrady, Kathy Kleiman, Jonathan Agmon, and Claudio di Gangi * If Time Permits: Question 10 - Proposal from Michael Graham

3. AOB

Best Regards,

Mary, Julie, Ariel

<ATT00001.txt>

World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.

_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

---

GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.