[Gnso-rpm-trademark] [Ext] RE: Trademark Claims Updated Table

Wed Jun 21 22:08:11 UTC 2017

Apologies for not attending as well.  Other duties called.

Greg

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:

> Hi Michael – all the credit should go to Kristine, who presented the
> report and the Sub Team’s thinking behind our recommendations very clearly
> and yet concisely!
>
>
>
> Staff will be posting the action items from the call to the Working Group
> mailing list shortly, to include a reminder for Working Group members to
> weigh in with comments and questions. We hope that Sub Team members will be
> able to provide answers to any questions that may be raised. As the updated
> questions and data collection suggestions will be on the Working Group’s
> agenda for next week at ICANN59, we also hope that Sub Team members who are
> not able to be present in Johannesburg can nevertheless join the meeting
> remotely.
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary
>
>
>
> *From: *"Michael Graham (ELCA)" <migraham at expedia.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 15:11
> *To: *Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, Justine Chew <
> justine.chew at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Trademark Claims Updated Table
>
>
>
> Mary:
>
>
>
> My apologies for missing the full meeting this morning – though I am
> confident you and Amr would have been able to present the sub team’s
> revised questions and comments admirably.
>
>
>
> I will review the mp3 and transcript, but please let me know if any
> questions were raised that I should address.
>
>
>
> Thanks again for your great work.
>
>
>
> Michael R.
>
>
>
> *From:* Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2017 10:02 PM
> *To:* Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>; Michael Graham (ELCA) <
> migraham at expedia.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Trademark Claims Updated Table
>
>
>
> Dear Michael and Justine,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the comments. Staff will clean up the formatting of the
> table, as updated by Michael, and send it to the Working Group list. As
> there are still some questions and comments in the table that may require
> further discussion, our expectation is that, in going through the table and
> in reporting on the Sub Team’s work to the full Working Group, Kristine and
> Michael will explain the context and possible directions for these. Of
> course, as mentioned previously, all Sub Team members will be able to also
> provide their comments during the Working Group’s discussion of the table.
>
>
>
> You will see from the Working Group co-chairs’ proposed agenda for the
> 3-hour Working Group meeting at ICANN59 that this Sub Team’s report, as
> well as that from the Sunrise Sub Team, will be the subject of discussion
> there as well so there should be ample opportunity for a full review of our
> work.
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary
>
>
>
> *From: *<gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Justine Chew <
> justine.chew at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 00:25
> *To: *"Michael Graham (ELCA)" <migraham at expedia.com>
> *Cc: *"gnso-rpm-trademark 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>
> 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] *On Behalf Of *Amr Elsadr
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2017 6:57 AM
> *To:* 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[docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_13u5h6Wh6QUqW0vzT5q0zCTEmjMQ8-5FiCat6ZehLHQC7Q_edit&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=kHTpXa4-wye9-apHRpJHOK5EEQ_j4se8d21t-CnmAOA&s=efqCWeV9FY4hE9L4zJ_VIMnV70vaReFoo5I4gRttH-k&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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list
> 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/a1f20abc/attachment.html>