[Gnso-rpm-trademark] [Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q5

Fri May 24 23:05:25 UTC 2019

In response to Kristine's suggestion about suggesting a perpetual claims period--and keeping in mind Kristine's preference for not putting in our disputes, to which I'm highly sympathetic--I would oppose this language.

We never arrived at approval or agreement of the full subteam about any individual proposal regarding perpetual claims, and there is definitely no consensus that it is a good idea.  The existing policy, very much including its time limits, was negotiated extensively in the name of balance.  We have no data to show us that permanent claims are in any way needed by trademark owners (including, for example, data about a change in cybersquatting behavior after Claims ends), but lots of data to show us problems with the existing TM Claims and the problems of the current 90 day period turning many potential registrants back.

I am concerned that, if we recommend this option specifically, we are implicitly suggesting that it is an offering we {subteam/WG) support when we don't.  Given the existing concerns with claims, blessing perpetual claims--even as an apparently ICANN approved "option" rather than as a mandate--is not a good idea.

I would strike the middle sentence in Kristine's formulation.

Rebecca Tushnet
Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
703 593 6759
________________________________
From: Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 5:39 PM
To: Ariel Liang; gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] [Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q5

Proposed language for Q5:

Generally, the WG recommends a uniform minimum duration of 90 days for Claims periods where the RO has not obtained an exemption (See Q1).  We do recommend ROs continue to be allowed to extend the Claims period (up to and including in perpetuity) if desired.  We have questions for the community in Q1 related to potential scenarios for allowing some RO business models to obtain an exemption for Claims that may or may not be based on “types” of gTLDs (an undefined term).

From: Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 10:19 AM
To: gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] [Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q5

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 5.

We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 17 May 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 29 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 26-28)

The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 17 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2817%20May%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1558112544184&api=v2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_102138613_-255BClaims-2520Summary-2520Table-255D-2520-252817-2520May-25202019-2529.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1558112544184-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=sz5KNkF1dX7qXI0OUuU_65op2jGtdRduaa-TzOaOibY&s=aU1L9f64t8pDXnLhLlkOaeGrzEFMUAN9fM_zJwnFkRI&e=>

Agreed Trademark Claims Question 5

The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 5 on 15 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.

Q5: Should the Trademark Claims period continue to be uniform for all types of gTLDs in subsequent rounds?

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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_9YIWBg&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=sz5KNkF1dX7qXI0OUuU_65op2jGtdRduaa-TzOaOibY&s=W0cIDub4I7qYLA2YafLi7mTGvAk8rIAtswXm8vGs8g0&e=>

Best Regards,

Mary, Julie, Ariel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190524/9f67e261/attachment.html>