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

Wed May 22 16:41:16 UTC 2019

Dear Kathy and Rebecca,

On behalf of Martin and Roger, the Sub Team Co-Chairs, we thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comments on this discussion thread.  We encourage the whole Sub Team to continue discussion of the open threads (Q2, Q4 and Q5). The plan is to discuss respective thread comments the next meeting after a Discussion Thread is closed (i.e. Q4 at the May 29th meeting (to start the discussion) but with the thread closing on 29 May (extended)), and Q2/Q5 at the June 5th meeting after those threads close on 29 May). Once the Sub Team has discussed all thread input/comments during this subsequent meeting, the respective proposed answers to charter questions and preliminary recommendations will be updated based on the Sub Team discussion and sent to the Sub Team for review.

As mentioned in the emails and during meetings, staff formulated the proposed answers and preliminary recommendations based on the transcripts and chats for the meetings during which the Sub Team discussed the agreed charter questions and related individual proposals. To the extent that there may be gaps, we are grateful if someone could point us to where in the meeting transcripts and chat records there are discussions that we may have missed, or mischaracterized.

Thank you very much for your feedback and assistance.

Kind regards,
Mary, Ariel, and Julie

From: Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 at 9:01 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Closing Date Extended: [Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q4

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><mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>
Date: Friday, May 3, 2019 at 10:49 AM
To: "gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org> <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org><mailto: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<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/20190522/8e89944a/attachment-0001.html>