[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Trademark Claims Updated Table

Wed Jun 21 19:15:16 UTC 2017

Justine:

Thanks for your comments.  As to the combining of comments, I proposed combining insofar as my understanding was that the comments included the original observation and the follow-up information and could therefore be clearer if combined.  I am not adverse to not combining them.

As for whether we should be able to suggest data in the event of expansion, I think the PDP should have the ability to do so – and I presume we would identify some of that data in the course of discussing the proposals.  Good catch.

Michael R.

From: Justine Chew [mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 9:25 PM
To: Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham at expedia.com>
Cc: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Trademark Claims Updated Table

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your revised redline version -- this has addressed all the 3 questions I posed to Amr in an earlier reply to his call for checking/input (so Amr, there's no longer a need to reply to me now)

I am in agreement with the wordings of the Updated Questions (per column 2) in your copy.

While I don't have any major concerns to your amendments to the Data Available / Collection Needed  (per column 4) I don't necessarily think there is a need to combine certain points since my understanding is that some of them are points gleaned from the AG revised report for the sub team's reference.

I had one last question for the sub team: in the event the non-exact matches expansion goes ahead, would we be in a position to suggest what post-implementation data needs to be captured in order to help better inform a future review group?

Cheers
,

Justine Chew
-----

On 21 June 2017 at 11:50, Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham at expedia.com<mailto:migraham at expedia.com>> wrote:
I attach the redlined version of the Trademark Claims Charter Questions with my comments and proposed revisions.  I agree with Kristine’s Question 4 draft – great work!

Michael R.

From: gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 6:57 AM
To: gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org<mailto: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

  1.  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.
  2.  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
  3.  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<https://docs.google.com/document/d/13u5h6Wh6QUqW0vzT5q0zCTEmjMQ8_iCat6ZehLHQC7Q/edit>. 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

_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list
Gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20170621/35fdb60d/attachment-0001.html>