<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Taking Justine's version as a jumping-off, here are some revisions :</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">4. Does the exact match criteria for Trademark Claims Notices limit its usefulness?<span class="gmail-im"><span class="gmail-m_6027596184608679092im"><br> a. What is the evidence of harm under the existing system?.</span></span></span></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><span class="gmail-im"><span class="gmail-m_6027596184608679092im">i. Are there studies, reports or articles discussing the harm of typosquatting and other forms of non-exact-match cybersquatting?</span></span></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><span class="gmail-im"><span class="gmail-m_6027596184608679092im">ii. What is the actual experience of brandowners?</span></span></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><span class="gmail-im"><span class="gmail-m_6027596184608679092im">iii. What is the link between non-exact-match cybersquatting and phishing,malware distribution, botnets, counterfeiting, and other related harms?</span></span></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><span class="gmail-im"><span class="gmail-m_6027596184608679092im">iv. What information can be gleaned from UDRP/URS studies? What are the limitations of relying on UDRP/URS studies</span></span></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><span class="gmail-im"><span class="gmail-m_6027596184608679092im">v. What other sources of information should be used to explore the level of harm?</span></span></span></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"> b. Should the matching criteria for Notices be expanded?</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><span class="gmail-im"><span class="gmail-m_6027596184608679092im"><span style="font-size:12.8px"> i. If so, how (which criteria) and why?</span></span></span></span></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><span class="gmail-im"><span class="gmail-m_6027596184608679092im"><span style="font-size:12.8px">A. Review each suggested non-exact match </span></span></span></span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><span style="font-size:12.8px"> ii. What results (including unintended consequences) might each suggested form of expansion of matching criteria have?</span><br><span style="font-size:12.8px"> iii. What balance should be adhered to in striving to deter bad-faith registrations but not good-faith registrations?</span><span class="gmail-im"><span class="gmail-m_6027596184608679092im"><br><span style="font-size:12.8px"> c. What is the feasibility of each form of expanded matches?</span><br></span></span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> i. </span><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">S</font></span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">hould the marks in the TMCH be the basis for an expansion of matches for the purpose of providing a broader range of claims notices?</font></span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><span style="font-size:12.8px"> <br> ii. </span></span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Who should be tasked to implement a solution for a expansion of matches?<br></span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"> iii. What are the anticipated costs of </span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">implementing a solution for a expansion of matches? </span></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">A. Who should bear these costs?</span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"> d. If an expansion of matches solution were to be implemented:</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"> i. Should the existing TM Claims Notice be amended? If so, how?<br></span><span style="font-size:12.8px;color:rgb(80,0,80)"> ii. Should users pay a fee to use it?</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;color:rgb(80,0,80)"> iii. Should the Claim period differ for exact matches versus non-exact matches?</span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Justine Chew <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com" target="_blank">justine.chew@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Hi all,<br><br>I've just caught up with the recording from last week's call.<br><br>While I do realise that the earlier copy of the questions had been finalised, I do wonder if we could do a quick re-look at the wording of Q3 ie <i>"3. Does the Trademark Claims Notice to users meet its intended purpose?"</i> Reason being when I read it again yesterday and today it made me ask wrt "to users" "which users?", do we need the words "to users"? Or am I the only one bothered by this?<br><br><br>Back to the matter at hand .....Thanks, Kristine and Rebecca, for kicking off this discussion for inclusion of non-exact matches questions.<br><br>While I understand Kristine's approach for inserting non-exact matches questions throughout Qs1-3, I favour Rebecca's reasoning and hence her approach in clustering the questions in Q4:<br><br>(1) It may difficult enough to assess effectiveness of the existing TM Claims Notice for exact matches (an existing RPM) without muddying the waters with an expansion with non-exact matches (not an existing RPM)<br>(2) I am also cognizant of the fact that non-exact matches (if they proceed) should be "inferior" to that of exact matches (i.e. non-exact matches would not be included in the TMCH database but simply generated from records included the TMCH), so I think questions related to non-exact matches should be distinctly and addressed entirely under Q4. <br><br>My rework of Q4 for further refinement / proper renumbering:<br><br><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">4. Does the exact match criteria for Trademark Claims Notices limit its usefulness?<span class=""><span class="m_6027596184608679092im"><br> a. What is the evidence of harm under the existing system?</span></span></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"> b. Should the matching criteria for Notices be expanded?</span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><span class=""><span class="m_6027596184608679092im"><span style="font-size:12.8px"> i. If so, how (what criteria) and why?</span><br></span></span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> ii. What unintended consequences might an expansion of matching criteria have?</span><br><span style="font-size:12.8px"> iii. What balance should be adhered to in striving to deter bad-faith registrations but not good-faith registrations?</span><span class=""><span class="m_6027596184608679092im"><br><span style="font-size:12.8px"> c. What is the feasibility of expanded matches?</span><br></span></span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> i. </span><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">S</font></span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">hould the marks in the TMCH be the basis for an expansion of matches for the purpose of providing a broader range of claims notices?</font></span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><span style="font-size:12.8px"> <br> ii. </span></span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Who should be tasked to implement a solution for a expansion of matches?<br></span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><span style="font-size:12.8px"> iii. Who should bear the cost of </span></span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">implementing a solution for a expansion of matches?</span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br> d. If an expansion of matches solution were to be implemented:</span></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><span style="font-size:12.8px"> i. Should the existing TM Claims Notice be amended? If so, how?<br></span></span><span style="font-size:12.8px;color:rgb(80,0,80)"> ii. Should users pay a fee to use it?</span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px;color:rgb(80,0,80)"> iii. Should the Claim period differ for exact matches versus non-exact matches?</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><br><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default">As to data collection for Q4 / proposal for non-exact matches, I support Kristine's proposal of "<span style="font-size:14.6667px;color:rgb(255,0,0)">I suggest that we ensure any UDRP/URS data gathering we initiate include a question looking for evidence to support or refute the assertion that UDRP and URS cases demonstrate significant abuse of non-exact match terms and when those terms are registered, relative to the launch of the TLD.</span>" <br><br>Further I note that the present data collection suggestions refer to the need to connect UDRP/URS filed (ref 3b. in far right column of table) to registration of domain names that triggered claims notices and that's fine, but I wanted to know if we had data on how many of such UDRP/URS filed were ultimately successful. <br><br>I think if the non-exact matches proposal were to go ahead it would be useful to be able to gauge if UDRP/URS complaints were filed as a result of a non-exact match term being registered even if a notice was triggered had been filed on a 'genuine' basis, so as to speak. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>I will try my best to join the call on Friday night.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail_signature">Thanks,<br><br>Justine Chew <br>-----</div></div><div><div class="h5"><div><div class="m_6027596184608679092adm"><div id="m_6027596184608679092q_15caa5e834275eee_7" class="m_6027596184608679092ajR m_6027596184608679092h4"><div class="m_6027596184608679092ajT"></div></div></div><div class="m_6027596184608679092h5">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 15 June 2017 at 09:46, Rebecca Tushnet <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu" target="_blank">Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetow<wbr>n.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Yes, I would like to keep Q4 together. Below I've tweaked a bit in response to Kristine's comments, as I understood them.<div class="gmail_extra"><span class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-"><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Rebecca Tushnet<div>Georgetown Law</div><div><a href="tel:(703)%20593-6759" value="+17035936759" target="_blank">703 593 6759</a></div></div></div></div>
<br></span><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-">On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Rebecca Tushnet <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu" target="_blank">Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetow<wbr>n.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-">I think breaking this up is likely to make it harder to assess the current system versus the proposed system. I think that Kristine's basic questions could be aggregated at the end, though I have a couple of notes, which are below my slightly revised version:<div><br></div></span><div><span class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-"><span><p class="MsoNormal">Should the matching criteria for Claims be expanded?<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">i. If
so, how (what criteria) and why? <span></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal">a. What is the evidence of harm under the existing system?<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">b. What unintended consequences might non-exact matches
have?<span></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal">c. What is the feasibility of expanded matches? E.g, if human input is required, who would be
responsible for that input? Who would
pay for it? How would it affect the overall
costs of the RPM system, and should users be allowed to choose whether to use (and pay for) expanded matches? If automated matches are used, how will the
automated procedure be developed, at what costs/timeline? <span></span></p><span class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-">
<p class="MsoNormal">ii. If so,
should the Claims notice change?<span></span></p>
<p class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span>If so, how?<span></span></p>
<p class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span>Should there be more than one type of Claims
notice?</p></span></div></div></blockquote><div>iii. If so, should the Claims period differ for exact and non-exact matches?</div><div>a. Is there evidence of different behavior with respect to exact and non-exact matches over time?</div><div>b. What effects would having more than one Claims period have on different stakeholder groups?</div><div>iv. If so, what entity should implement the non-exact matching? </div><div><div class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-h5"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><p class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Questions for Kristine: In terms of claims period duration, could you say a little
more about why expanding the match criteria would interact with the claims
period?<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In terms of implementation criteria, could you say more
about what you mean by “implementation”?
Given what we’ve seen with design marks—where even if there is no
consensus about what to do, what has been revealed is that the provider (here
Deloitte) ended up making significant choices that have major effects on what
may be included; I would not like to see that repeated, if only to spare future
groups similar battles.<span></span></p></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Rebecca Tushnet<div>Georgetown Law</div><div><a href="tel:(703)%20593-6759" value="+17035936759" target="_blank">703 593 6759</a></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493h5">On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-trademark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493h5">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398m_5813610730864587434WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Hi team:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)">In the hopes that we can wrap up our calls this Friday and report on our work to the plenary group next week, I’d like to kick off our final action item, assigned to us a week ago by the plenary
WG – that is, to include in the Charter questions and workplan, a discussion of the Shatan/Winterfeldt/Graham proposals (“S/W/G proposal”).
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)">For anyone out of pocket, I apologize for the long email with colors and formatting.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)">The proposed language from the chat, submitted by Kathy, is:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11pt">In light of the evidence of the TM Claims gathered in Questions 1-3 above, how extensive is the need for non-exact matches? What is the proof of harm under the existing system? What unintended consequences
might non-exact matches have? What is the appropriate balance going forward? a. If non-exact matches are not adopted, then no further action is necessary. b. If non-exact matches of some form are adopted, should the marks in the TMCH be used to generate non-exact
matches for the purpose of providing a broader range of claims notices? If so, how should the claims notices be written?<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">As I started to think about this in the context of the other charter questions, I started to think about the way we had the charter questions structured and how this would fit.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">New Q1 is gating: What’s working, what’s not.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">New Q2 brings up all the current proposed “solutions.”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">New Q3 asks about the wording of the claims notice.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Putting all of the S/W/G proposal factors into a single new question meant we’d be duplicating effort. So, I decided to take a risk. We’ve finalized our charter questions. But in order to really fit them
in the proper place, I’m suggesting to work the S/W/G proposal questions in, as below.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">That keeps Q1 as gating: intended/unintended effects.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">That makes sure we keep all the proposals in Q2.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">That makes sure we discuss the variations in language (Q3) for the notice at the same time.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">And the newly-revised Q4 adds time to discuss how it could work technologically.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Thoughts on my straw proposal below?
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;background:yellow">Do you support the “working in” option or the creation of a single, multi-part standalone question?</span><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">(I just extracted the Updated questions for the purposes of this discussion…we are NOT eliminating any columns)
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:red">My changes are in red text.</span><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<table class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398m_5813610730864587434MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="border:1pt solid black;background:rgb(217,217,217);padding:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">Updated Question</span></b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="border-right:1pt solid black;border-bottom:1pt solid black;border-left:1pt solid black;border-top:none;padding:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">1.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black">Is the Trademark Claims service having its intended effect, specifically:</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><span>a.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">Is the Trademark Claims service having its intended effect of deterring bad-faith registrations
</span>and providing notice to potential registrants?<span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="color:black"><span>b.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">Is the Trademark Claims service having any unintended consequences, such as deterring good-faith registrations?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="border-right:1pt solid black;border-bottom:1pt solid black;border-left:1pt solid black;border-top:none;padding:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">2. If the answers to 1.a. is “no” or 1.b. is “yes”, or if it could be better: What about the Trademark Claims service should be adjusted, added or eliminated in order for it to have its intended effect?</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><span>a.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">Should the Claims period be extended - if so, how long (up to permanently)?</span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="color:black"><span>b.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">Should the Claims period be shortened?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="color:black"><span>c.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">Should the Claims period be mandatory?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="color:black"><span>d.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">Should any TLDs be exempt from the Claims RPM and if so, which ones and why?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="color:black"><span>e.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:red">Should the matching criteria for Claims be expanded?</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398m_5813610730864587434MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0.75in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="color:black"><span>i.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:red">If so, how (what criteria) and why?</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398m_5813610730864587434MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0.75in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="color:black"><span>ii.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:red">If so, should the expansion affect the duration of the Claims period?</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="border-right:1pt solid black;border-bottom:1pt solid black;border-left:1pt solid black;border-top:none;padding:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">3.</span><span style="font-size:7pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black">Does the Trademark Claims Notice to users meet its intended purpose?</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398m_5813610730864587434MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="color:black"><span>a.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">If not, is it intimidating, hard to understand, or otherwise inadequate?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398m_5813610730864587434MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="color:black"><span><span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> <wbr>
</span>i.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">If inadequate, how can it be improved?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398m_5813610730864587434MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="color:black"><span>b.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">Does it inform potential registrants of the scope and limitations of trademark holders’ rights?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398m_5813610730864587434MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="color:black"><span><span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> <wbr>
</span>i.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">If not, how can it be improved?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398m_5813610730864587434MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="color:black"><span>c.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">Are translations of the Trademark Claims Notice effective in informing potential registrants of the scope and limitation of trademark holders’ rights?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398m_5813610730864587434MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="color:red"><span>d.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:red">If the matching criteria should be expanded, should the Claims Notice change? If so, how?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_6027596184608679092m_8175807593060135938gmail-m_4975777808147998493m_4618435299721857398m_5813610730864587434MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:baseline">
<u></u><span style="color:black"><span><span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> <wbr>
</span>i.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:red">Should there be more than one Claims Notice?</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="border-right:1pt solid black;border-bottom:1pt solid black;border-left:1pt solid black;border-top:none;padding:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">4. If the Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP determines
</span><s><span style="color:red">that non-exact matches of trademarks should be allowed inclusion in the TMCH</span></s><span style="color:black">,
</span><s><span style="color:red">should the TM Claims Notice be changed, and if so, how?
</span></s><span style="color:red"> to expand matching criteria for Claims Notices, what implementation criteria does the WG recommend?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red">a. Ask the TMCH?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red">b. Find a 3P provider?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red">c. Something else?</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="border-right:1pt solid black;border-bottom:1pt solid black;border-left:1pt solid black;border-top:none;padding:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">5. Should the Trademark Claims period continue to be uniform for all types of gTLDs in subsequent rounds?</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">For proposed data, <span style="color:red">
I suggest that we ensure any UDRP/URS data gathering we initiate include a question looking for evidence to support or refute the assertion that UDRP and URS cases demonstrate significant abuse of non-exact match terms and when those terms are registered, relative
to the launch of the TLD.<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Kristine<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@ica<wbr>nn.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-trademark-bou<wbr>nces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Amr Elsadr<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 12, 2017 4:13 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Action Items for the Trademark Claims Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Dear Trademark Claims Sub Team Members,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/mzzwAw" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/<wbr>mzzwAw</a>.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Thanks.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Amr<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:1pt solid windowtext;padding:0in 0in 1pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Action Items:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:22.5pt">
<u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>1.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="font-size:11pt">Sub Team</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> to draft a question(s) that would allow the WG to analyze the proposals by Michael Graham, Greg Shatan and Brian Winterfeldt during the Trademark
Claims Review<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:22.5pt">
<u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>2.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><b><span style="font-size:11pt">Sub Team</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> to use the following question as a starting point for discussion of the proposals on non-exact matches by Michael Graham, Greg Shatan and Brian
Winterfeldt: <i>"In light of the evidence of the TM Claims gathered in Questions 1-3 above, how extensive is the need for non-exact matches? What is the proof of harm under the existing system? What unintended consequences might non-exact matches have? What
is the appropriate balance going forward? a. If non-exact matches are not adopted, then no further action is necessary. b. If non-exact matches of some form are adopted, should the marks in the TMCH be used to generate non-exact matches for the purpose of
providing a broader range of claims notices? If so, how should the claims notices be written?"</i>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br></div></div>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org">Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>