<div dir="auto">Dear Amr,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Could you please clarify for me:-</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">1. What is the difference between the redline and clean copies of the documents you attached in your earlier email? I ask because I see some redline text on the first page of the "clean" copy also. Further, which of these is the version is the copy posted under the googledoc link?<br><br>2. What has happened to or what are the outcomes from the discussions on Question 4? Have these been discarded altogether or are we looking to adopt one of the proposed amendments tabled during the last sub team call? It's not apparent to me how we are proceeding with the non-exact matches issue.<br><br>3. Ultimately, which is the proposed copy proposed to be submitted to the full WG for consideration?<br><br>*Apologies, I am working off my tablet today and do not have the benefit of multiple screens for easy comparison.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Many thanks,<br><br>Justine</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 21 Jun 2017 3:02 a.m., "Amr Elsadr" <<a href="mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org">amr.elsadr@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="m_4927114826985427701WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hello again,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Just sending a reminder to please provide any comments on this TODAY (20 June). We plan on sending the Sub Team report to the Working Group mailing list later this evening in preparation for tomorrow’s Working
Group meeting.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Once sent, members of the Sub Team, as well as other Working Group members, will of course have an opportunity to provide further feedback, either tomorrow or during the Working Group face-to-face meeting
in Johannesburg.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Amr<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black"><<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org" target="_blank">amr.elsadr@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 3:57 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Trademark Claims Updated Table<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Sub Team Members,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Attached are two copies (redline and clean) of the latest version of the Sub Team table with updated questions and data requirements as per the Sub Team call on Friday, 16 June. The changes made since Friday
are as follows:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">All mentions of “users” and “potential registrants” have been replaced with “domain name applicants”.</span>
<u></u><u></u>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">A footnote has been added explaining that the term “domain name applicant” is not meant to ascribe any intent on the applicant’s part</span><u></u><u></u></li></ul>
</li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The 4<sup>th</sup> bulleted question for registrars in the data column adjacent to question 1 has been deleted. This question previously read:
<i>“Please share an overview of how the general registrar processes leading up to Claims Notices and checkout processes work (during pre-order, general availability and after Claims period has expired)”</i>. During the last Sub Team call, members expressed
views that registrars are unlikely to agree to share this information. It was also agreed that the most important datum being sought in this question is the point in the registration process in which a Trademark Record is downloaded by a registrar, in response
to an attempted registration matching a registration in the TMCH. This is still covered by bulleted question 3.</span><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The last bulleted question was edited to enquire on the feasibility of registrars conducting surveys of domain name applicants, instead of enquiring on the
willingness of registrants to conduct surveys</span><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Question 4, and its data requirements, have been reworded by Kristine based on the discussion of the 5 suggested rewordings (also attached) offered by Kathy
Kleiman, Kristine Dorrain, Rebecca Tushnet, Justine Chew and Greg Shatan, as well as the subsequent discussion that took place.</span><u></u><u></u></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Please take some time today to review the changes made. You will find them both in the attached documents, as well as on the google doc
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_13u5h6Wh6QUqW0vzT5q0zCTEmjMQ8-5FiCat6ZehLHQC7Q_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DZVUAuc1juldSXNq8YmDoadUOY0MfYdjlopAUQyOxRQ&m=nJnx3f48Pb6p0LNEAOPgfIlJLKZgFneP1aobfULZyko&s=BKrwbQVT0v_pEc4lfndsRBOfN_xfwwHiBxJkyi7I8lo&e=" target="_blank">
here[docs.google.com]</a>. The Sub Team Co-Chairs are scheduled to provide a comprehensive report of the Sub Team recommendations during tomorrow’s full Working Group call (21 June at 17:00 UTC).</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Amr</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</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></div>