[Gnso-rpm-trademark] FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for TM Claims

[Mary Wong]

Hi all, just to note that staff has slightly updated the overall Work Plan, to take into account recent meeting agendas and the cancellation of the full WG meeting on 10 May as that is when the GDD Summit will take place and several WG members had requested that a full WG meeting not take place that week.

The updated Work Plan is attached to this email and can also be accessed on the WG wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/wBeOAw

We hope the updated draft Work Plan is helpful to the Sub Team as you finalize the Charter questions and begin to formulate a proposed “mini work plan” for them.

Thanks and cheers
Mary


From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Date: Monday, April 24, 2017 at 18:58
To: "gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for TM Claims

Dear all,

Staff has updated the Google Doc we have been using as a Sub Team in accordance with the action items and suggestions made on the call. This includes initial suggested language for some “strawperson” questions in a new column. Please note that, under the existing “Additional Comments” column, we’ve retained the comments from last week but added a date so that your new comments can be inserted underneath. As it is a Google Doc, you can of course also see the entire revision history.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GEWeolyHlj91BXHrO5wG_Q7iv6a8tmjx8wRABppfu40/edit?usp=sharing

Attached to this email are two documents which we hope will facilitate your review and comments. The first is a PDF capture of the Google Doc (as it currently stands) in case you wish to have it as a reference while you edit the Google Doc itself. The second is a Word document where staff has included what we thought were relevant statements from the IRT and STI reports on a rationale for the Claims Service (however, as someone noted on the call, these are not as fulsome as they could have been).

As agreed on the call last Friday, please add your comments and edits into the Google Doc by close of business in your time zone on Wednesday 26 April.

Thanks and cheers
Mary


From: <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org>
Date: Friday, April 21, 2017 at 15:49
To: "gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Action Items and Notes from the Trademark Claims Sub Team - 21 April 2017

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/20170425/5585e51e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Updated Work Plan - 25 April 2017.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 37590 bytes
Desc: Updated Work Plan - 25 April 2017.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20170425/5585e51e/UpdatedWorkPlan-25April2017-0001.docx>