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

Tue May 28 20:47:28 UTC 2019

Dear Kristine, Kathy, and all,

In light of the redline comments/suggestions being provided via word documents, staff have created a google doc version by importing/converting the latest word document just circulated by Kristine (28 May at 20:29 UTC): https://docs.google.com/document/d/10quBC1BnuIM_wOyEXH7TttNWEOrDTiPNscgSBd7QFXg/edit?usp=sharing

If you wish to continue redlining, it may be better using this Google Doc. Comments and suggested edits are easier to find/read; version confusion can be avoided using Google Doc.

We hope it helps.

Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel

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>
Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink at amazon.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 4:29 PM
To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>, "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

Thanks Kathy, I appreciate your work on this.  I sadly don’t think we’re close, but am persevering.

***********************
All:  I went in and fixed the doc to track authors, so hopefully it will track us going forward.  I also tried to add my name by comments in case it gets erased.

Because we don’t have any actual recommendations, but just list of points and counterpoints followed by some questions, I was wondering if it made more sense to structure our report a little differently?
I did:
Question
Answer (even if it’s we don’t agree) – 100% neutral.
Questions (community action items) – hopefully neutral
Discussion (in case anyone wants to read that far) –the “debate” as we have it.

Repeat.  This allows everyone to get their points in, but doesn’t deflect from the mission, which is to solicit community input.    I’m interested to hear what people think.  Staff, are we even allowed to deviate from the format?

From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 7:04 PM
To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink at amazon.com>; gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Closing Date Extended: [Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q4

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><mailto: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<mailto: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/20190528/bfe797be/attachment-0001.html>