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

Wed May 29 01:28:19 UTC 2019

I think after the dialogue on the list, we arrived at the language 
below.  (note: my only contribution was to expand the RO acronym)

Revised Proposed language for Q5:

*Generally, the WG recommends a uniform minimum duration of 90 days for 
Claims periods where the Registry Operator has not obtained an exemption 
(See Q1).  We have questions for the community in Q1 related to 
potential scenarios for allowing some Registry Operator business models 
to obtain an exemption for Claims that may or may not be based on 
“types” of gTLDs (an undefined term).*

On 5/24/2019 7:41 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-trademark wrote:
>
> In the interest of moving things along, I’m not wedded to that middle 
> sentence and could strike it.  I am generally in favor of not saying 
> more than we need to and I take your point that simply re-iterating 
> existing practice is unnecessary verbiage here. OK to simply remain 
> silent.
>
> Kristine
>
> *From:*Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2019 4:05 PM
> *To:* Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>; 
> gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org; Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink at amazon.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q5
>
> 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 
> <mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Dorrain, 
> Kristine via Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2019 5:39 PM
> *To:* Ariel Liang; gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 **29May 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 15May 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190528/3a6a2111/attachment-0001.html>