[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Closing Date Extended: [Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q4

Tue May 21 00:59:19 UTC 2019

Dear Roger and Martin,

I am writing to provide input on TM Question #4. I believe this 
recommendation write-up may have been posted for the first time on Friday.

I write because I am a bit dismayed. I feel only part of the discussion 
has been captured, and a good part of it left out. I know it is hard to 
capture everything, but Rebecca and I feel that, although we were very 
much present and active on the call and working with the Subteam in 
these discussions, very little of our input was captured, especially on 
this very important question.

To that end, she and I submit a redline with edits and additions which 
we ask you to review and include -- to ensure the WG and all reviewing 
this important document catch the full flavor of our discussions and the 
current status of our division over any recommendations.

The file is attached so that the edits, via Track Changes, will be 
clearly visible.

Best regards and tx, Kathy

Attachment

On 5/17/2019 1:19 PM, Ariel Liang wrote:
>
> Dear Trademark Claims Sub Team members,
>
> Per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination, the closing date of 
> the Discussion Thread for the Trademark Claims Agreed Charter Question 
> 4 has been extended. It will remain open until *23:59 UTC on 22 May* 
> *2019*. The extension is granted to encourage further discussion about 
> this question on list.
>
> You may wish to reference the latest version *Summary Table (as of 17 
> May 2019), pages 18-26*, for your review/input: 
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2817%20May%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1558112544184&api=v2 
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel
>
> *From: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
> *Date: *Friday, May 3, 2019 at 10:49 AM
> *To: *"gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q4
>
> Dear Trademark Claims Sub Team members,
>
> As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list 
> discussions related to *Trademark Claims Agreed Charter Question **4*.
>
> We ask that you review the *Summary Table* *(as of 16 April 2019) *and 
> provide any additional input you may have to the “*tentative answers & 
> preliminary recommendations*” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question.
>
> Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion 
> thread will remain open until *23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019*. 
> Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this 
> discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the 
> final Sub Team member input.
>
> *Summary Table (Pages 16-20)*
>
> The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the 
> relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 
> 16 April 
> 2019):https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515784000&api=v2
>
> **
>
> *Agreed Trademark Claims Question 4(Page 16-17)*
>
> The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 4 on 02 May 2019, 
> hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s 
> discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.
>
> /Q4: Is the exact match requirement for Trademark Claims serving the 
> intended purposes of the Trademark Claims RPM? In conducting this 
> analysis, recall that IDNs and Latin-based words with accents and 
> umlauts are currently not serviced or recognized by many registries./
>
> *_Proposed Answer_: * TBD
>
> /
> Q4(a) What is the evidence of harm under the existing system?
> /*_Proposed Answer_: *TBD
>
> //
>
> /Q4(b) Should the matching criteria for Notices be expanded?
> /*_Proposed Answer_: *TBD
>
> //
>
> /Q4(b)(i) Should the marks in the TMCH be the basis for an expansion 
> of matches for the purpose of providing a broader range of claims notices?
> /*_Proposed Answer_: *TBD
>
> //
>
> /Q4(b)(ii) What results (including unintended consequences) might each 
> suggested form of expansion of matching criteria have?
> /*_Proposed Answer_: *TBD
>
> //
>
> /Q4(b)(iii) What balance should be adhered to in striving to deter 
> bad-faith registrations but not good-faith domain name applications?
> /*_Proposed Answer_: *TBD
>
> //
>
> /Q4(b)(iv) What is the resulting list of non-exact match criteria 
> recommended by the WG, if any?
> /*_Proposed Answer_: *TBD
>
> //
>
> /Q4(c) What is the feasibility of implementation for each form of 
> expanded matches?
> /*_Proposed Answer_: *TBD
>
> //
>
> /Q4(d) If an expansion of matches solution were to be implemented:
> /*_Proposed Answer_: *TBD
>
> //
>
> /Q4(d)(i) Should the existing TM Claims Notice be amended? If so, how?
> /*_Proposed Answer_: *TBD
>
> //
>
> /Q4(d)(ii) Should the Claim period differ for exact matches versus 
> non-exact matches?/
>
> *_Proposed Answer_: * TBD
>
> *Where to Find All Discussion Threads *
>
> Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the 
> all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): 
> https://community.icann.org/x/9YIWBg
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190520/0fd0ad3b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TM QUESTION #4 5-17-2019 ed. by Sub Team member.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 25430 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190520/0fd0ad3b/TMQUESTION45-17-2019ed.bySubTeammember-0001.docx>