[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Closing Date Extended: [Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q2

Tue May 21 18:19:40 UTC 2019

*Hi All, I'm not sure why this is typing in yellow highlight, but so be 
it.  I think we had a good discussion on TM#2 and arrived at some sound 
recommendations. Some edits below, largely from Rebecca, further 
incorporate the nuances of our discussion into the proposed answers and 
draft recommendation.*

*Best, Kathy (individual capacity)
*

*p.s. hopefully edits in green visible below*

*----------------------------------------------------------
*

*Agreed Trademark Claims Question 2(Pages 6-7)*

//[/(a) and (b) unchanged]/

//

/(c) Should the Claims period be mandatory?/

*_Proposed Answer: _*The Claims Period should be mandatory and be 
consistently applied to all TLDs. However, registries should have 
certain degree of flexibility to create a suitable business model in 
carrying out the Claims Period.

*_Proposed Answer: _Where there is a Claims Period (see Q2(d)), it 
should not be shortened.*

**/
(d) Should any TLDs be exempt from the Claims RPM and if so, which ones 
and why?/

*_Proposed Answer: _*Some TLDs should be exempt from the Claims RPM.

*_Proposed Answer: _Some members of the Subteam believed that .brand 
gTLDs had no need for a Claims period, because there will be no 
individual registrants in a .brand. Some members suggested that certain 
highly regulated new gTLDs, on the order of .bank, might not need a 
Claims period because of the other requirements of registration, while 
another member argued that a Claims period would still be appropriate 
and not harmful.  Other members suggested there may various use cases 
for exempting a TLD from the requirement of a mandatory Claims Period 
due to the particular nature of the TLD, such as a restricted gTLD that 
would bar commercial use due to its terms of use or acceptable use policy.*

*
*

*_Draft Recommendation:_ The TM Claims Subteam recommends, in general, 
that the current requirement for a mandatory Claims Period be 
maintained, including for the minimum initial 90-day period when a gTLD 
opens for registration. In addition, the TM Claims Subteam recommends 
that public comment be sought on whether there is a use case for 
exempting a gTLD that is approved in subsequent expansion rounds from 
the requirement of a mandatory Claims Period due to the particular 
nature of that gTLD. Such type of gTLD might include: (i) restricted 
TLDs that bar any commercial use due to their terms of use or acceptable 
use policy; (ii) “highly regulated” TLDs that have stringent 
requirements for registering entities, on the order of .bank; and/or 
(iii) “Dot Brand” TLDs whose proposed registration model demonstrates 
that the use of a Claims Service is unnecessary.  [moved up from (e) 
below and slightly edited for clarity]
*

Potential Question for Public Comment: Is there a use case for exempting 
a TLD from the requirement of a mandatory Claims Period due to the 
particular nature of the TLD? [incorporated above]

/
(e) Should the proof of use requirements for Sunrise be extended to 
include the issuance of TMCH notices?/

*_Proposed Answer: _*The Sub Team agreed that this is an issue for the 
full Working Group when discussing the TMCH. The Sub Team also needs to 
review George Kirkios’s individual proposal (#2?) regarding extending 
the proof of use requirements for Sunrise to include the issuance of 
TMCH notices.

/[Recommendation below appears to be for (d), now included above. Do we 
have a draft recommendation for (e)?]/

*_Draft Recommendation:_*In general, the Sub Team recommends that the 
current requirement for a mandatory Claims Period be maintained, 
including for the minimum initial 90-day period when a TLD opens for 
general registration. In addition, the Sub Team recommends that public 
comment be sought on whether there is a use case for exempting a TLD 
from the requirement of a mandatory Claims Period due to the particular 
nature of the TLD. Such type of TLD might include: (i) restricted TLDs 
that bar any commercial use due to their terms of use or acceptable use 
policy; and (ii) “Dot Brand” TLDs whose proposed registration model 
demonstrates that the use of a Claims service is unnecessary.

*Individual Proposals*

Please reference the following pages in the Summary Table for the draft 
answers to the three questions regarding the individual proposals. Links 
to the individual proposals are also included below.

*Proposal #1 (Pages 7-8): 
*https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf?api=v2**

*Proposal #12 (Pages 8-9): 
*https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2312.pdf?api=v2 

On 5/17/2019 1:19 PM, Ariel Liang wrote:
>
> Dear Trademark Claims Sub Team members,
>
> Per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination, theclosing date of the 
> Discussion Thread for the Trademark Claims Agreed Charter Question 2 
> has been extended. It will remain open until *23:59 UTC on 29 May*.
>
> The extension is granted due to its overlap with the Trademark Claims 
> Agreed Charter Question 5. The Discussion Thread for TM Claims Q5 will 
> also remain open until 23:59 UTC on 29 May 2019.
>
> You may wish to reference the latest version*Summary Table (as of 17 
> May 2019), pages 8-13*, 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: *Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM
> *To: *"gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q2
>
> 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 2*, 
> including *Individual Proposals #1 and #12*.
>
> 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, and *draft answers *to the following questions regarding the 
> individual proposals:
>
> a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including 
> this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of 
> public comment?
>
> b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the 
> current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed?
>
> c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made 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 6-12)*
>
> 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 2(Pages 6-7)*
> 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)?/
>
> *_Proposed Answer: _*Registries should have the option to extend the 
> Claims Period. The Sub Team noted, however, that there is data 
> indicating an extension will not be advisable as a matter of policy.
>
> /
> (b) Should the Claims period be shortened?/
>
> *_Proposed Answer: _*The Claims Period should not be shortened.
>
> /
> (c) Should the Claims period be mandatory?/
>
> *_Proposed Answer: _*The Claims Period should be mandatory and be 
> consistently applied to all TLDs. However, registries should have 
> certain degree of flexibility to create a suitable business model in 
> carrying out the Claims Period.
>
> /
> (d) Should any TLDs be exempt from the Claims RPM and if so, which 
> ones and why?/
>
> *_Proposed Answer: _*Some TLDs should be exempt from the Claims RPM.
>
> *_Potential Question for Public Comment_*: Is there a use case for 
> exempting a TLD from the requirement of a mandatory Claims Period due 
> to the particular nature of the TLD?
>
> /
> (e) Should the proof of use requirements for Sunrise be extended to 
> include the issuance of TMCH notices?/
>
> *_Proposed Answer: _*The Sub Team agreed that this is an issue for the 
> full Working Group when discussing the TMCH. The Sub Team also needs 
> to review George Kirkios’s individual proposal (#2?) regarding 
> extending the proof of use requirements for Sunrise to include the 
> issuance of TMCH notices.
>
> *_Draft Recommendation:_*In general, the Sub Team recommends that the 
> current requirement for a mandatory Claims Period be maintained, 
> including for the minimum initial 90-day period when a TLD opens for 
> general registration. In addition, the Sub Team recommends that public 
> comment be sought on whether there is a use case for exempting a TLD 
> from the requirement of a mandatory Claims Period due to the 
> particular nature of the TLD. Such type of TLD might include: (i) 
> restricted TLDs that bar any commercial use due to their terms of use 
> or acceptable use policy; and (ii) “Dot Brand” TLDs whose proposed 
> registration model demonstrates that the use of a Claims service is 
> unnecessary.
>
> *Individual Proposals*
>
> Please reference the following pages in the Summary Table for the 
> draft answers to the three questions regarding the individual 
> proposals. Links to the individual proposals are also included below.
>
> *Proposal #1 (Pages 7-8): 
> *https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf?api=v2**
>
> *Proposal #12 (Pages 8-9): 
> *https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2312.pdf?api=v2 
>
>
> 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/20190521/f9d0a138/attachment-0001.html>