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

Tue May 1 16:40:17 UTC 2018

Hi - thanks very much for those additional insights. So if it's encoded -
do we know if the providers have access to that information? That's
basically what I'm getting at, is what material do the providers have
access to, and what, in turn, is made available to the Examiners,
Respondents and Complainants for the URS proceeding. Very open to
rephrasing, of course, if it's unclear, but I think it's important to keep
this in as an area of inquiry.

Best,

Michael

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>
wrote:

> 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
> 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> on
> behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, April 27, 2018 at 17:38
> *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org" <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>
> 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
> 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/f9da1ceb/attachment-0001.html>