<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<b><span style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">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.</span></b>
<p><b><span
style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Best,
Kathy (individual capacity)<br>
</span></b></p>
<p><b><span
style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">p.s.
hopefully edits in green visible below</span></b></p>
<p><b><span
style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">----------------------------------------------------------<br>
</span></b></p>
<p><b><span
style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Agreed
Trademark Claims Question 2</span><span style="color:black">
(Pages 6-7)</span></b><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"></span><i><span style="color:black"></span></i>[<i>(a)
and (b) unchanged]</i></p>
<i><span style="color:black"></span></i>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black">
(c) Should the Claims period be mandatory?</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strike><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed
Answer: </span></u></b></strike><strike><span
style="color:black">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.</span></strike></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><b><font
color="#33cc00"><u>Proposed Answer: </u>Where there is a
Claims Period (see Q2(d)), it should not be shortened.</font></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><b><font
color="#33cc00"></font></b></span><i><span
style="color:black"><br>
(d) Should any TLDs be exempt from the Claims RPM and if so,
which ones and why?</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strike><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed
Answer: </span></u></b></strike><strike><span
style="color:black">Some TLDs should be exempt from the Claims
RPM.</span></strike></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><font color="#009900"><br>
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#009900"><u>Proposed Answer: </u>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.</font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#009900"><br>
</font></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><font color="#009900"><span
style="color:black"><b><font color="#009900"><u>Draft
Recommendation:</u> 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]<br>
</font></b><br>
</span></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strike>Potential Question for Public Comment</strike><strike>:
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?</strike> [incorporated above]<br>
<strike></strike></p>
<strike>
</strike>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
(e) Should the proof of use requirements for Sunrise be
extended to include the issuance of TMCH notices?</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed
Answer: </span></u></b>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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><font color="#009900">[Recommendation below
appears to be for (d), now included above. Do we have a draft
recommendation for (e)?]</font></i><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Draft
Recommendation:</span></u></b><span style="color:black"> 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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Individual
Proposals</span></b></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="color:black">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. </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="color:black">Proposal
</span>#1 (Pages 7-8): </b><a
href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf?api=v2">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf?api=v2</a><b>
</b></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="color:black">Proposal
</span>#12 (Pages 8-9): </b><a
href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2312.pdf?api=v2">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2312.pdf?api=v2</a>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/17/2019 1:19 PM, Ariel Liang
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D1D3FF9F-892C-48A8-AD1B-0B2E5317631F@icann.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@DengXian";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Trademark Claims Sub Team members, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination, the<span
style="color:black"> closing date of the Discussion Thread
for the Trademark Claims Agreed Charter Question 2 has been
extended. It will remain open until
<b>23:59 UTC on 29 May</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">You may wish to
reference the latest version<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>Summary Table (as
of 17 May 2019), pages 8-13</b>, for your review/input:
<a
href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2817%20May%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1558112544184&api=v2"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2817%20May%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1558112544184&api=v2</a>
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Mary, Julie,
Ariel</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Ariel Liang
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org"><ariel.liang@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM<br>
<b>To: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org">"gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org"><gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q2<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="color:black">Dear Trademark Claims Sub Team members,
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="color:black">As announced, this thread is being
opened for final mailing list discussions related to
<b>Trademark Claims Agreed Charter Question 2</b>, including
<b>Individual Proposals #1 and #12</b>.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="color:black">We ask that you review the
<b>Summary Table</b> <b>(as of 16 April 2019) </b>and
provide any additional input you may have to the “<b>tentative
answers & preliminary recommendations</b>” in relation
to the Agreed Charter Question, and
<b>draft answers </b>to the following questions regarding
the individual proposals:
</span></p>
<p
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span
style="color:black">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?</span></p>
<p
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span
style="color:black">b. In light of the Individual Proposal,
are any modifications to the current “tentative answers
& preliminary recommendations” needed?
</span></p>
<p
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span
style="color:black">c. Should any additional Sub Team
recommendations be made in relation to the Agreed Charter
Question?
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="color:black">Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine
otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until
<b>23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019</b>. 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="color:black;background:yellow">Summary Table
</span><span style="color:black">(Pages 6-12)</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;caret-color: rgb(0,
0, 0);font-variant-caps: normal;orphans:
auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-size-adjust:
auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">The draft answers, preliminary
recommendations, and links to the relevant individual
proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April
2019):<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a
href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515784000&api=v2"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515784000&api=v2</a><span
class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color:black">
</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Agreed
Trademark Claims Question 2</span><span
style="color:black"> (Pages 6-7)</span></b><span
style="color:black"><br>
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?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
(a) Should the Claims period be extended - if so, for how
long (up to permanently)?</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed
Answer: </span></u></b><span style="color:black">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
(b) Should the Claims period be shortened?</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed
Answer: </span></u></b><span style="color:black">The
Claims Period should not be shortened.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
(c) Should the Claims period be mandatory?</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed
Answer: </span></u></b><span style="color:black">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
(d) Should any TLDs be exempt from the Claims RPM and if
so, which ones and why?</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed
Answer: </span></u></b><span style="color:black">Some
TLDs should be exempt from the Claims RPM.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Potential Question for Public Comment</u></b>:
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?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
(e) Should the proof of use requirements for Sunrise be
extended to include the issuance of TMCH notices?</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed
Answer: </span></u></b>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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Draft
Recommendation:</span></u></b><span style="color:black">
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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Individual
Proposals</span></b></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="color:black">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. </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="color:black">Proposal
</span>#1 (Pages 7-8): </b><a
href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf?api=v2"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf?api=v2</a><b>
</b></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="color:black">Proposal
</span>#12 (Pages 8-9): </b><a
href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2312.pdf?api=v2"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2312.pdf?api=v2</a>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="color:black">Best Regards,</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="color:black">Mary, Julie, Ariel
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org">Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>