<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Kristine and All,</p>
<p>Don't we love meetings that come after a long holiday weekend? <br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>(2) OK, I've added the language to 2(d) below. Does that fit the
bill?</p>
<p>Best and tx,<br>
Kathy<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/24/2019 5:34 PM, Dorrain, Kristine
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:cad8308cd598488a9e7578f63b002dba@EX13D14UWC001.ant.amazon.com">
<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:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
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
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
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;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Consolas",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:2062747883;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1506019020 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I am generally
ok with this language, but have two flags.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="color:#1F497D">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:
</span><b><span style="color:#009900">Such type of gTLD might
include:
</span></b><b><span style="color:red">(i) restricted TLDs
that bar any commercial use due to their terms of use or
acceptable use policy;
</span></b><b><span style="color:#009900">(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]</span></b><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="color:#1F497D">Regarding
who qualifies for an exemption: It’s *<b>possible</b>* 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="color:#1F497D">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.”
<i>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.</i> “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?)”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Kristine<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="color:windowtext"> Gnso-rpm-trademark
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org"><gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kathy Kleiman<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 21, 2019 11:20 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org">gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Closing Date
Extended: [Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q2<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="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>
<span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Best,
Kathy (individual capacity)</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">p.s.
hopefully edits in green visible below</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">----------------------------------------------------------</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Agreed
Trademark Claims Question 2</span> (Pages 6-7)</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>[<i>(a) and (b) unchanged]</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i>(c)
Should the Claims period be mandatory?</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><s><u>Proposed
Answer:
</u></s></b><s>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.</s><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><u><span
style="color:#33CC00">Proposed Answer:
</span></u></b><b><span style="color:#33CC00">Where there
is a Claims Period (see Q2(d)), it should not be
shortened.</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><br>
(d) Should any TLDs be exempt from the Claims RPM and if so,
which ones and why?</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><s><u>Proposed
Answer:
</u></s></b><s>Some TLDs should be exempt from the Claims
RPM.</s><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><u><span
style="color:#009900">Proposed Answer:
</span></u></b><b><span style="color:#009900">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.</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><u><span
style="color:#009900">Draft Recommendation:</span></u></b><b><span
style="color:#009900"> 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] </span><i><span
style="color:#1F497D">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.</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><s>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?</s>
[incorporated above]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><br>
(e) Should the proof of use requirements for Sunrise be
extended to include the issuance of TMCH notices?</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><u>Proposed
Answer:
</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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span
style="color:#009900">[Recommendation below appears to be
for (d), now included above. Do we have a draft
recommendation for (e)?]</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><u>Draft
Recommendation:</u></b> 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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Individual
Proposals</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b>Proposal #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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b>Proposal #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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 5/17/2019 1:19 PM, Ariel Liang wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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 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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mary, Julie, Ariel<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">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Ariel Liang
<a href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><ariel.liang@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM<br>
<b>To: </b><a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">"gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org"</a>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q2</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Dear Trademark
Claims Sub Team members,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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>.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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:
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;vertical-align:baseline">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;vertical-align:baseline">b.
In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications
to the current “tentative answers & preliminary
recommendations” needed?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;vertical-align:baseline">c.
Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in
relation to the Agreed Charter Question?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="background:yellow">Summary Table
</span>(Pages 6-12)</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">
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><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Agreed
Trademark Claims Question 2</span> (Pages 6-7)</b><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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><br>
(a) Should the Claims period be extended - if so, for how
long (up to permanently)?</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Proposed Answer: </u></b>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><br>
(b) Should the Claims period be shortened?</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Proposed Answer: </u></b>The
Claims Period should not be shortened.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><br>
(c) Should the Claims period be mandatory?</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Proposed Answer: </u></b>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><br>
(d) Should any TLDs be exempt from the Claims RPM and if
so, which ones and why?</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Proposed Answer: </u></b>Some TLDs
should be exempt from the Claims RPM.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><br>
(e) Should the proof of use requirements for Sunrise be
extended to include the issuance of TMCH notices?</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Proposed Answer: </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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Draft Recommendation:</u></b> 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.<b><i> Such type of TLD might include: (i) restricted
TLDs that bar any commercial use due to their terms of
use or acceptable use policy; </i></b>and (ii) “Dot
Brand” TLDs whose proposed registration model demonstrates
that the use of a Claims service is unnecessary.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Individual
Proposals</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b>Proposal #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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b>Proposal #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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Mary, Julie, Ariel
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>