[Gnso-rpm-providers] Updated Redline (version 26 April): Proposed Questions to URS Providers

Tue May 1 14:17:11 UTC 2018

Mary is correct, the detailed description of the goods & services is in the encoded element of the SMD file (confirmed by a colleague in Com Laude who regularly deals with SMD files).

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd

E: susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175

From: Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: 27 April 2018 15:08
To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>; Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
Cc: gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Updated Redline (version 26 April): Proposed Questions to URS Providers

Hi Michael,

I’ll defer to those with the relevant expertise and experience here; but if it helps the staff understanding is that a SMD file consists of both human-readable as well as encoded elements. The trademark in question is one human-readable element, but, as we understand it, information about the Nice classification and relevant category of goods or services is contained within the encoded element: see http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/help/faq/which-information-does-smd-file-contain (note that registries and registrars use the information contained within the encoded section for validation purposes during Sunrise registrations).

Some additional information about what is contained in, and the format of, a SMD File: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lozano-tmch-func-spec-10#section-6.4 (from the TMCH Functional Specification) and https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/smd-29aug13-en.pdf (informational paper from ICANN).

Hopefully someone with experience with SMD files can either confirm or correct.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, April 27, 2018 at 17:38
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>>
Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Updated Redline (version 26 April): Proposed Questions to URS Providers

Hi,

Thanks for circulating. A couple of small suggested additions (in bold) for page 2:

The Complaint
....
3. A) (To FORUM) How does the FORUM handle the submission (through its online Complaint filing site) of a relevant SMD proof of use from the TMCH which is expressly provided for in the URS Rules 3(b)(v)?  Can the categories of goods and services of the trademark be read from the SMD file?

B) (To ADNDRC) Does ADNDRC's electronic Complaint form (Form C_URS) also allow the uploading of .smd files in the same manner as MFSD? Can the categories of goods and services of the trademark be read from the SMD file?

Best,

Michael Karanicolas

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Sub Team,

Following yesterday’s WG call, staff have consolidated all comments and suggestions received during and after the call. We will update this document if more comments/suggestions are posted on the WG mailing list by the deadline of Friday, 27 April COB. Please find the redline document attached.

1. Staff would like to draw your attention to the questions below. Do you have any further input/feedback?

Questions that have been rephrased
The Response: Q11 (by George K)
Examiner: Q13 (by staff), Q14 (by George K), Q15 (by Michael K, with an alternative question proposed by staff)
Examiner Determination: Q3 (by Brian B), Q10 (by George K)
Effect of Court Proceedings: Q1 (by David M)
Others: Q3 (by staff)

Questions that were suggested to be deleted, or rephrased
Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q5
Default: Q1
Examiner Determination: Q8, Q10
Others: Q5

Questions that have received further comments after the WG meeting
Examiner: Q3, Q4, Q14, Q15
Remedies: Q3

2. Per Co-Chairs’ requests, staff have highlighted the following questions in yellow that could take longer time to respond in Providers’ view and our view. Comments aside contain rationale/details.

Questions that Providers may need longer time to respond (45-60 days)
Communications: Q1
The Complaint: Q4
Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: Q2
The Response: Q1, Q3(A)(B), Q4, Q5, Q10, Q14, Q15
Stay of the Administrative Proceeding: Q1
Examiner: Q8, Q10, Q11
Language: Q2, Q3, Q4
Default: Q2
Examiner Determination: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q6, Q8, Q9
Remedies: Q2, Q5
Determinations and Publication: Q3, Q4
Appeal: Q1
Others: Q3, Q4

Question to the Sub Team: When the questions are transmitted to the Providers, should they be separated from the “faster to answer” questions? Does it matter if they stay in the current order?

3. During the call yesterday, Rebecca Tushnet indicated that her research findings of URS decisions will be shared soon. While staff are not completely sure about the categories of information she was collecting, we identified some questions that her research yields may likely provide (partial) answers, especially the questions that may require Providers to review URS Determinations. Our assumption is that Complaints, Responses, and party submissions may not be included in Rebecca’s research.

Questions that Rebecca Tushnet’s Research Yields May Provide (Partial) Answers
The Complaint: Q4, Q8, Q9, Q10
Fees: Q2
The Response: Q1, Q5, Q12, Q14, Q15
Stay of the Administrative Proceeding: Q1
Examiner: Q8
Language: Q3, Q4
Default: Q2
Examiner Determination: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q6, Q8, Q9
Remedies: Q2
Determinations and Publication: Q1, Q3, Q4
Appeal: Q1, Q2

Question to the Sub Team: Assuming Rebecca’s research data will be shared before next Tuesday, should these questions be sent to the Providers AFTER the WG/Sub Team checks Rebecca’s research yields? Alternatively, Rebecca’s research data can be directly forwarded to the Providers once it is ready to share, and Providers can reference the data themselves when formulating responses. Staff will follow up with Rebecca on sharing the data. Welcome your feedback/input on the approach.

4. Staff would like to suggest to include some introductory text at the beginning of the proposed questions. For example:

You are only being asked to formulate responses insofar as you have the knowledge or ability to do so as professional URS service Providers. The RPM PDP WG would be grateful to receive your responses by [insert suggested deadline], as the WG aims to discuss your responses during the ICANN62 Meeting. Thank you for your time and kind cooperation.

Please share your input/feedback on the introductory text, if any.

Thank you for your time and contribution!

Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list
Gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180501/4ac475e0/attachment-0001.html>