[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Actions & Notes: RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team Meeting 27 March 2019 1700 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team meeting held on 27 March 2019 (17:00-18:00 UTC).  Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes.  Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-03-27+Sub+team+for+Trademark+Claims+Data+Review.

Best Regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

ACTIONS & NOTES:

Actions:  Staff will endeavor to capture the draft text of preliminary recommendations and incorporate it into a revised summary table.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs):

2. Development of Preliminary Recommendations:

Discussion on the list re: Question 1: Some people might be being deterred, but we can't know for sure.  So, our preliminary recommendation could be that it is "possible" that it is working as intended.

QUESTION 2:
If the answers to the agreed Claims question 1(a) is “no” or 1(b) is “yes”, or if it could be better: What about the Trademark Claims Notice and/or the Notice of Registered Name should be adjusted, added or eliminated in order for it to have its intended effect, under each of the following questions?
(a) Should the Claims period be extended - if so, for how long (up to permanently)?
(b) Should the Claims period be shortened?
(c) Should the Claims period be mandatory?
(d) Should any TLDs be exempt from the Claims RPM and if so, which ones and why?
(e) Should the proof of use requirements for Sunrise be extended to include the issuance of TMCH notices?

Tentative Preliminary Recommendation: Maintain the status quo on questions (a), (b), and (c): The claims period should not be extended, shortened, or made mandatory.

Discussion:
On 2 (a), (b), and (c):
-- See individual proposal from George Kirikos.
-- Should have an option to be extended (TMCH currently offers an extended claims period service that is optional).
-- Think about how to be gathering data sucecssively.
-- If you look at previously collected data from the AG it would seem to not support extentions.
-- If the Sub Team recommends that the claims period should be mandatory, then it should be for all TLDs.
-- Not sufficient data to show that the claims notice isn't doing what it is supposed to do.
-- With respect to extended claims period should be an option (maintaining the status quo).
-- Keep in mind that RPMs were a community compromise.
-- The TMCH extended service is only a notice to the Brand owner, not the same as an extended claims service.
-- Consider an optional claims extention, but seems the data supports maintaining the status quo.
-- George Kirikos' individual proposal: Expectations that cybersquatting would be a lot higher than it turned out to be (in original testimony).

Tentative Preliminary Recommendation: Maintain the status quo: no exemptions and no extensions for proof of use.

Discussion:
On 2 (d) and (e): [Brief notes are not complete, reference transcript and recording]
-- Important to have consistency of RPMs to reduce confusion for users to understand their rights and responsibilities.
-- Have a minimum set of standards with respect to extensions.
--.brand could be an exemption and may have been the motivation for question 2(d).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190327/1e6aa2e4/attachment-0001.html>