[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Proposed Agenda for Trademark Claims Sub Team call this Friday

[Mary Wong]

Dear TRADEMARK CLAIMS Sub Team members (with apologies for my mistake in using “Sunrise” in my last note!),

Here is the proposed agenda for the Sub Team call this Friday 21 April (scheduled at 1600 UTC):


1.       Roll call

2.       Review the questions in the Google Doc – which can be deleted or combined? Which should be grouped together? What other suggestions make sense?

3.       [if time permits] Review Working Group Work Plan – is the proposed time frame for tackling all the questions realistic? What changes should be proposed?

4.       Next steps – are we ready to report back to the full Working Group? Do we need another meeting and, if so, when?

For your convenient reference, here is the link to the Google Doc again: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GEWeolyHlj91BXHrO5wG_Q7iv6a8tmjx8wRABppfu40/edit?usp=sharing)

Thanks and cheers
Mary



From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 15:33
To: "gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
Subject: REMINDER: Please submit comments on Trademark Claims Charter questions

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
Just a gentle reminder to review the Google Doc for the Trademark Claims Charter questions (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GEWeolyHlj91BXHrO5wG_Q7iv6a8tmjx8wRABppfu40/edit?usp=sharing) and either enter your comments or send them to this mailing list by COB in your time zone tomorrow, 19 April.
We hope the notes and action items (below) are helpful to you in your review of the first Sub Team call from last Friday, and in preparing for this week’s discussion. Please note also that, as part of the initial Sub Team work, it is expected that the Sub Team will propose a timeline for approaching all the finalized Sunrise questions – for your convenience, please find attached the latest Working Group Work Plan which staff will update following your and the other Sub Teams’ deliberations.
Thanks and cheers
Mary

From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Date: Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:40
To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
Subject: Re: Action Items and Notes from Trademark Claims Sub Team Call - 14 April 2017

Hello everyone,

To facilitate your preparations for our next call this Friday at 1600 UTC, staff has gone ahead and marked up the status of each of the Action Items in blue, in the list Amr circulated (below). Please let us know if you have any questions!

Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] IMPORTANT: Action Items and Notes from Trademark Claims Sub Team Call - 14 April 2017

Dear Trademark Claims Sub Team members,

Please find below the Action Items and Notes from the Trademark Claims Sub Team call on Friday, 14 April. The Sub Team had a very productive call last Friday, and I suggest that Sub Team members who were not able to attend listen to the recording. You will find links to the recordings on the GNSO Calendar (https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr)[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar-23apr-29&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Ny0paX0eM7EHu-pi0BwrqMooLG9mOZXmbwH6T8OYMEM&s=j1N7JqqrGYt30NbkiJdBSFZMN_11dPZdN6EBXI7pc3E&e=>.

Thanks.

Amr


Action Items:


1.      Defer selection of Sub Team Chair to on-list call for volunteers - Kristine Dorrain and Michael Graham volunteered to co-chair
NOTE: Does anyone else wish to volunteer or may we consider Kristine and Michael confirmed as the co-chairs of this Sub Team?


2.      Sub Team members to review and bundle Charter questions (both specific to Trademark Claims and General questions) that are related to each other, and eliminate those that are duplicative - integrate into working group workplan, so that timeline needed to collect additional information is factored in
Please review the Google Doc that staff prepared following our first call: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GEWeolyHlj91BXHrO5wG_Q7iv6a8tmjx8wRABppfu40/edit?usp=sharing


3.      Similar to the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team, Sub Team members have 5 days (COB Wednesday, 19 April) to send suggestions to the mailing list, to be captured by staff in a Google Doc
Please feel free to insert your comments directly into the Google Doc, or if you prefer to send them to this mailing list, staff will add them on your behalf.


4.      Staff/Sub Team Leadership to set up a Google Doc for first pass of consolidation of questions
Done.


5.      Staff to review all questions listed in consolidated list document to ensure that Charter questions relevant to Trademark Claims are categorized appropriately --> confirm this with Sub Team members on-list
Please consider the questions in the staff email sent to Sub Teams: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2017-April/000008.html and note Paul McGrady’s initial response: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001605.html


6.      Staff to compile information on context/origin of each of the Charter questions by the next Sub Team call
Done (see Google Doc).


7.      Sub-Team to make determination of what is meant by "Genuine Registrations", and report back to the full Working Group
Initial Sub Team suggestion to replace “genuine” with “good faith” noted in Google Doc.


8.      Staff will keep the original questions in the Google Doc, but will capture comments/suggestions in a separate column
Done for discussion from first call, staff will keep tracking.


9.      Staff to confirm with Sub Team members on-list that the next call will take place next Friday (21 April) at the same time (UTC 16:00)
Done - calendar invitation and call details have been sent out.

Notes:


·         Suggestion to adopt approach to work similar to Sunrise Registrations Sub Team

o   Suggestion to avoid wordsmithing – if a Charter question is unclear, add footnote to draw attention to the full Working Group

o   Sub Team members to send suggestions to mailing list, captured by staff in a Google Doc to be circulated prior to next week’s Sub Team call

o   Purpose of next Sub Team call will be to deliberate on contents of the Google Doc

·         Missing data necessary to answer Charter questions should be identified early on, along with possible sources, in order to provide time to collect and analyze when the time comes

·         All outputs/deliverables/requests for addition data identified by the Sub Team will be subject to review and a decision by the full Working Group on next steps

·         "General Questions" in consolidated list of charter questions document might be directly relevant to the Sub Team's work

·         3 Categories of Questions:

o   Questions directly specific to Trademark Claims

o   General Charter questions of relevance to the Trademark Claims

o   Questions on TMCH that have relevance to the Sub Team on Trademark Claims (particularly questions that were deferred until discussion on Trademark Claims take place)

·         Overview of questions and their contexts:

o   Source of questions are mainly from public comments, previous papers and projects

o   Some questions are longstanding questions from the community, while some may be from individuals or smaller groups

o   ACTION ITEM: Staff will identify historic context for each of the Sub Team's Charter questions

o   In answering charter questions, follow-up questions will be identified, and considered along with how they will fit in with Working Group workplan

·         Discussion on Trademark Claims Question 1: “Should the Trademark Claims period be extended beyond 90 days?”

o   Should this question be followed up with others (example: if “yes”, then for how long/short)

o   Sub Team should identify refinements, follow up questions, additional questions or sub-questions, and provide direction to the full Working Group in answering those questions

o   Suggestion to allow for requests to extend the 90-day Trademark Claims period (place in a comment section on the Google Doc) as middle ground, instead of extending minimum mandatory 90-day period – possible to associate request to extend 90-day period with demonstrable causes

o   What party would be responsible for agreeing to an extension of the 90-days, and what criteria would that party be required to consider

o   Notices on claims services to registrants and TM holders beyond 90 days are currently voluntary, not required (this is an ICANN-approved ancillary service that Deloitte offers)

·         Discussion on Trademark Claims Question 2: “Should the Trademark Claims period continue to apply to all new gTLDs”

o   Clarification of intent and meaning of question 2 required, may require contextual research

o   Does this question involve retroactive applicability of Trademark Claims period to existing new gTLDs, or does this concern new gTLD subsequent procedures

o   Questions 1, 2 and 5 inter-related on applicability and scope of Trademark Claims - can be bundled together

o   Should registry operators be allowed to choose between provision of Trademark Claims services or Sunrise Registrations

·         Discussion on Trademark Claims Question 3: “Does a Trademark Claims period create a potential “chilling effect” on genuine registrations, and, if so, how should this be addressed?”

o   Necessary to revise the language of the Trademark Claims notice to both registrants and Trademark holders

o   Suggestion to adopt clearer nomenclature to replace "genuine registrations" – possibly with "good-faith registrations"

o   What constitutes "good faith" – Not meant to refer to cybersquatting or trademark infringing domain name registrations, keeping in mind the scope of the RPMs in dealing with cybersquatting and trademark infringement

·         Discussion on Trademark Claims Question 4: “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry picked and removed from new gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)”

o   Does this question belong in the Trademark Claims discussion

o   Does the Sub Team agree with a previous Working Group decision to defer answering this question as part of the overall TMCH review until after the Trademark Claims and Sunrise Registrations reviews are conducted


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20170419/4eb70fb2/attachment-0001.html>