Dear all, For the Working Group call that will take place at 0400 UTC (around 8 hours from now – Tuesday night for some members and Wednesday for others), subject to further changes from our co-chairs, we will continue to discuss the TMCH Charter questions in Category 1 (Education) and return to the three registry responses we received to the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team questions: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continue discussion on TMCH Charter Questions Category 1 (see further below) 3. Continue review of Registry responses received to TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team questions (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63151397/18.1%20Registry%20...) 4. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, the discussion will focus on the follow up questions that were sent to this mailing list last week, i.e.: 1. On whether the TMCH is “clearly communicating” its criteria and process (including for submission of entries by rights holders and objections to specific entries and recordals in the TMCH): · It is possible that the TMCH Guidelines themselves (e.g. criteria and process for submission of entries) are clearly communicated – the problem could be with a perceived inconsistency of approach (e.g. it is not always clear what the grounds for rejecting submissions are) and an apparent piecemeal approach to implementation (e.g. it is not clear what else will be accepted as proof of use). Comments? · Has anyone reported or does anyone know if there has been any issue or trouble concerning multiple registrations of the same trademark by multiple trademark holders? · Can we get more information about what the TMCH’s “learning curve” has been between its establishment and initial operations, and now? · Is there any publicly-available information on how to object to TMCH entries and recordals? How can objections be lodged if the TMCH database is not publicly searchable? 2. On whether the TMCH should be responsible for education: · Who should the TMCH be educating besides rights holders – e.g. registrants, users, the community at large? You can find the full set of TMCH Charter questions here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58729944/Clean%20-%20TMCH%2... Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 07:44 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Follow up from Working Group call on 18 January 2017 1. On whether the TMCH is “clearly communicating” its criteria and process (including for submission of entries by rights holders and objections to specific entries and recordals in the TMCH): · It is possible that the TMCH Guidelines themselves (e.g. criteria and process for submission of entries) are clearly communicated – the problem could be with a perceived inconsistency of approach (e.g. it is not always clear what the grounds for rejecting submissions are) and an apparent piecemeal approach to implementation (e.g. it is not clear what else will be accepted as proof of use). Comments? · Has anyone reported or does anyone know if there has been any issue or trouble concerning multiple registrations of the same trademark by multiple trademar holders? · Can we get more information about what the TMCH’s “learning curve” has been between its establishment and initial operations, and now? · Is there any publicly-available information on how to object to TMCH entries and recordals? How can objections be lodged if the TMCH database is not publicly searchable? 2. On whether the TMCH should be responsible for education: · Who should the TMCH be educating besides rights holders – e.g. registrants, users, the community at large?