[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Closing Date Extended: [Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q2
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Wed May 29 01:22:08 UTC 2019
Hi Kristine and All,
Don't we love meetings that come after a long holiday weekend?
To Kristine: for (1) below, I took the language in red straight from
the Staff recommendation. I just moved it up because it wound up in the
wrong section [under "use"]. If you page down to the bottom of the
page, I have put the original line in bold italics.
(2) OK, I've added the language to 2(d) below. Does that fit the bill?
Best and tx,
Kathy
On 5/24/2019 5:34 PM, Dorrain, Kristine wrote:
>
> I am generally ok with this language, but have two flags.
>
> 1.Kathy, you added this language (which I made red for easy
> identification), which was not agreed to (you proposed it but I don’t
> recall anyone, particularly anyone from constituencies other than
> yours, who also supported it), so I think I would be useful to discuss
> it: *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]*
>
> Regarding who qualifies for an exemption: It’s **possible** we don’t
> need to put brands on notice because those TLDs are essentially
> single-registrant (The RO is also the registrant for all intents and
> purposes). For restricted TLDs, like .bank, there is an extremely
> close relationship between the RO and the registrant, often a very
> personal 1:1 connection and a lot of paperwork. A lot of vetting
> happens. In that scenario (#(i) in red), you’re actually proposing to
> remove a consumer protection where there isn’t that close 1:1
> relationship. Your proposal contains none of the same protective
> limitations as examples (ii) and (iii). While it’s possible that
> non-commercial uses of a word that is also a trademark would survive
> litigation, I worry that it’s unfair to not warn people that it’s
> still “enter at your own risk.” In the mini.tattoo scenario we’re
> discussing in the other group, even if someone registered mini.tattoo
> for the non-commercial purpose of a poetry blog, wouldn’t it be in the
> public’s best interest to tell them there was a risk of a lawsuit
> before they went through the effort? I’ve said it before, but UDRP
> cases that receive a “non-response” email often say “I had no
> idea—oops.” In your scenario, I don’t see additional vetting, I see a
> person going to a registrar, ticking a box saying “yeah, I’m
> non-commercial (or worse, I read the T&Cs and AUP)” (and people will
> self-identify wrong), and getting a domain without a claims notice
> then feel cheated when they get a UDRP and demand to know why they
> weren’t told. You’re here on behalf of non-commercial users as I
> understand it, and so I’m trying to understand if your proposal
> actually does them a disservice that simply changing the language of
> the claims notice might fix.
>
> 2.My second point is related to the first. I propose that we add
> language like this to 2(d). “We recommend that if the community
> supports an exemption, it should be codified in the RA, similar to the
> way the RA allows certain registries to have a Code of Conduct
> exemption for certain TLDs with certain business models.” /This would
> put guardrails on who can apply for, and receive, an exemption and
> gives Compliance oversight authority to enforce it.” [not married to
> this language – it’s a proposal]- I see it being most useful for
> scenario (ii) where the TLD is not single-registrant./ “If the WG
> recommends exemption language, what are the appropriate guardrails
> ICANN should use when granting the exception (e.g. single-registrant?
> Highly-regulated or manually hand-registered domains? Something else?)”
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kristine
>
> *From:*Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2019 11:20 AM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Closing Date Extended: [Discussion
> Thread] TM Claims Q2
>
> *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] /We recommend that
> if the community supports an exemption, it should be codified in the
> Registry Agreement, similar to the way the Registry Agreement allows
> certain registries to have a Code of Conduct exemption for certain
> TLDs with certain business models./*
>
> 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, the closing 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>
> <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 11:48 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 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 <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/e829b8c5/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-rpm-trademark
mailing list