[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Closing Date Extended: [Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q4
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue May 28 02:04:28 UTC 2019
Hi Kristine,
Tx for all your work on the Friday night of a holiday weekend. Much
appreciated!
Our Q4 document is attached. Alas, Word did not label our comments, so
I added a KD before your comments and then a KK before my responses. I
think we are getting close!
Q4(b)(iv) remains an area that still needs discussion and agreement...
Best, Kathy
On 5/24/2019 6:48 PM, Dorrain, Kristine wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
> I hope I’m replying to the most recent thread. I have to say that
> while these topic threads are helpful in some ways, my inbox is a
> disaster.
>
> I took Kathy’s suggestion here and stuck with the Word doc and redline
> – thanks for starting us off, Kathy. My edits are attached. My
> suggestion is that we should NOT editorialize in our initial report.
> This means that I don’t like “one sub team member said this or this”.
> I prefer a SHORT and neutral statement of the facts to get the points
> across then either state the recommendation or ask our questions. Full
> stop. Having responded to the SubPro report, which largely did NOT
> editorialize and it was still migraine-long, we will lose all
> community members if they have to read our bickering. The attached
> attempts to cut out all the discussion and staff notes as well as
> editorializing and strip this down to “just the facts, Jack” and our
> DIRECT questions.
>
> I hope I characterized other’s viewpoints in a clear way that didn’t
> dilute them and I welcome corrections and other input.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kristine
>
> *From:*Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman
> *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2019 5:59 PM
> *To:* 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/20190527/69e208db/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TM QUESTION #4 5-17-2019 ed. by Sub Team member KD and KK ed 05272019.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 41490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190527/69e208db/TMQUESTION45-17-2019ed.bySubTeammemberKDandKKed05272019-0001.docx>
More information about the Gnso-rpm-trademark
mailing list