[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Trademark Claims Updated Table

[Amr Elsadr]

Hello again,

Just sending a reminder to please provide any comments on this TODAY (20 June). We plan on sending the Sub Team report to the Working Group mailing list later this evening in preparation for tomorrow’s Working Group meeting.

Once sent, members of the Sub Team, as well as other Working Group members, will of course have an opportunity to provide further feedback, either tomorrow or during the Working Group face-to-face meeting in Johannesburg.

Thanks.

Amr

From: <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 3:57 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Trademark Claims Updated Table

Dear Sub Team Members,

Attached are two copies (redline and clean) of the latest version of the Sub Team table with updated questions and data requirements as per the Sub Team call on Friday, 16 June. The changes made since Friday are as follows:


  1.  All mentions of “users” and “potential registrants” have been replaced with “domain name applicants”.
     *   A footnote has been added explaining that the term “domain name applicant” is not meant to ascribe any intent on the applicant’s part
  2.  The 4th bulleted question for registrars in the data column adjacent to question 1 has been deleted. This question previously read: “Please share an overview of how the general registrar processes leading up to Claims Notices and checkout processes work (during pre-order, general availability and after Claims period has expired)”. During the last Sub Team call, members expressed views that registrars are unlikely to agree to share this information. It was also agreed that the most important datum being sought in this question is the point in the registration process in which a Trademark Record is downloaded by a registrar, in response to an attempted registration matching a registration in the TMCH. This is still covered by bulleted question 3.
  3.  The last bulleted question was edited to enquire on the feasibility of registrars conducting surveys of domain name applicants, instead of enquiring on the willingness of registrants to conduct surveys
  4.  Question 4, and its data requirements, have been reworded by Kristine based on the discussion of the 5 suggested rewordings (also attached) offered by Kathy Kleiman, Kristine Dorrain, Rebecca Tushnet, Justine Chew and Greg Shatan, as well as the subsequent discussion that took place.

Please take some time today to review the changes made. You will find them both in the attached documents, as well as on the google doc here[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_13u5h6Wh6QUqW0vzT5q0zCTEmjMQ8-5FiCat6ZehLHQC7Q_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DZVUAuc1juldSXNq8YmDoadUOY0MfYdjlopAUQyOxRQ&m=nJnx3f48Pb6p0LNEAOPgfIlJLKZgFneP1aobfULZyko&s=BKrwbQVT0v_pEc4lfndsRBOfN_xfwwHiBxJkyi7I8lo&e=>. The Sub Team Co-Chairs are scheduled to provide a comprehensive report of the Sub Team recommendations during tomorrow’s full Working Group call (21 June at 17:00 UTC).

Thanks.

Amr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20170620/352bfb89/attachment.html>