[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Action Items and Notes from the Trademark Claims Sub Team - 21 April 2017

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

Below are the Action Items and Notes from today’s Trademark Claims Sub Team call.

Thanks.

Amr


ACTION ITEMS:


1.       Research required to address Question 5 – staff to prepare briefing based on findings in the Analysis Group revised report to assist in that endeavor

2.       Staff to move Question 4 to the overarching TMCH Charter questions

3.       Staff to merge (batch) Questions 3 and 5 + suggest possible rewording/refinement

4.       Staff to merge (batch) Questions 1 and 2 + suggest possible rewording/refinement - subsequent to answering Qs 3 and 5

5.       Proposed Question 6 will not be included, but will be taken into consideration when rewording questions 3 to 5

6.       Staff to provide policy context/references on the intent of Trademark Claims

7.       Staff and Chairs to work up proposed "strawperson" language for remaining questions (maybe in new column on Google Doc)

8.       Sub Team to identify additional needed data on top of what Analysis Group and CCT-RT have provided (need to look at those data as well)

9.       Updated Google Doc to be provided by staff to the Sub Team by Monday 24 April, group to complete homework by Wednesday 26 April

NOTES:


·         Combine Questions 1 and 2 (are these implementation questions? - what data is required to provide guidance?)

·         Combine Questions 3, 4 and 5

·         Question 3: Replace "genuine" with "good faith" - more accurate description

·         Suggestion to move Question 4 to overarching TMCH Charter Questions, move to Sunrise Sub Team, or keep in Trademark Claims - should it be reworded?

·         Suggestion to remove questions 3 and 4, and combine in 5

·         Additional question suggested already moved to the TMCH discussion - being debated on the full Working Group mailing list - TM Claims Sub Team should only consider this question if referred to it by the full Working Group

·         Suggestion to refine Question 5 to compare effect of Claims against the intended effect they are meant to have ("Is the Claims Service having the intended effect?")

·         Noteworthy to evaluate whether the Trademark Claims are or are not exceeding their intended effects - one available resource for data on this is the Analysis Group revised report

·         Should interdependencies between questions 1 and 2 and the answer to question 5 be considered? Possible to suggest answering batched questions 3, 4 and 5 before answering questions 1 and 2

·         Potential follow-up question to question 5: If the Claims service is not functioning as intended, how can the policy/service be amended to match function with intent - what recommendations are required to achieve this?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20170421/ba902b7b/attachment.html>