[gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES (please read!)

Wed Jun 8 15:22:31 UTC 2016

Thank you for the summary Mary.

Unfortunately I will miss today¡¯s call, but I would like to suggest a couple of questions to consider:

1.     Should we draw any consequence from the fact that, as marks protected by statute or treaty, certain Geographical Indication (GIs) can be registered in the TMCH? In other words, once GIs have been admitted in the TMCH, one might argue that they are recognized as distinctive signs that deserve attention in the domain name system (sunrise periods, blocking domain services). If so, providing GIs with access to dispute resolution mechanisms ¨C UDRP in particular ¨C might be appropriate. In this respect, I share the point of view of the ones that, at the last meeting, considered that any improvement of other mechanisms cannot be considered in isolation from the UDRP.

2.     Should the TMCH database be publicly accessible for transparency purposes?

3.     Can be envisage to apply blocking registration and claims services also to misspellings or some variations of the marks contained in the TMCH?

Thanks,

Massimo

Mr Massimo Vittori
Managing Director ¨C oriGIn
1, rue de Varemb¨¦ 1202, Geneva, Switzerland
Telephone: +41 (0) 22 755 07 32
E-mail: massimo at origin-gi.com<mailto:massimo at origin-gi.com>
http://mailtrack.me/tracking/raWzMz50paMkCGZjZGH0Amp5AGZzMKWjqzA2pzSaqaR9AQV0AmH5ZmR2Way2LKu2pG05AwVmAGx0Awp0Zt<http://http://mailtrack.me/tracking/raWzMz50paMkCGZjZGH0Amp5AGZzMKWjqzA2pzSaqaR9AQV0AmH5ZmR2Way2LKu2pG05AwVmAGx0Awp0Zt/>

[twitter]<http://mailtrack.me/tracking/raWzMz50paMkCGZjZGH0Amp5AGZzMKWjqzA2pzSaqaR9AQV0AmH5ZmR2Way2LKu2pG05AwVmAGx0Awp2ZN>[linkedin]<http://mailtrack.me/tracking/raWzMz50paMkCGZjZGH0Amp5AGZzMKWjqzA2pzSaqaR9AQV0AmH5ZmR2Way2LKu2pG05AwVmAGx0Awp3ZD>[logos_youtubeBin1]<http://mailtrack.me/tracking/raWzMz50paMkCGZjZGH0Amp5AGZzMKWjqzA2pzSaqaR9AQV0AmH5ZmR2Way2LKu2pG05AwVmAGx0Awp4Ct>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any.

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell
Sent: 06 June 2016 22:06
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!)

Thanks for the summary, Mary.

I want to suggest another question to help evaluate the effectiveness of the TMCH:  How many trademarks were denied validation by the TMCH and for what reasons (by %)?  Along with the other questions presented below, this will be helpful in evaluating whether existing TMCH rules/procedures produced desired (or other) results.

Also, per the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, trademarks containing a ¡°dot¡± were not accepted by the TMCH.  Is this something we need to consider within our PDP given the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP?

Thanks,
Darcy

__________

Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer

M: +1 503-453-7305 ©¦ Skype: darcy.enyeart

[http://mailtrack.me/tracking/raWzMz50paMkCGZjZGH0Amp5AGZzMKWjqzA2pzSaqaR9AQV0AmH5ZmR2Way2LKu2pG05AwVmAGx0Awp5Cj]

From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Date: Monday, June 6, 2016 at 8:34 AM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes from WG call & **QUESTION FOR MEMBERS ABOUT MEETING TIMES** (please read!)

Dear all,

The following note contains an initial section for Members only, followed by a section intended for both Members and Observers, containing notes of the last Working Group call.

I. For Members only:
Please note the upcoming WG call on Wednesday 8 June will not be a rotating call; in other words, the 8 June WG meeting will take place at the regular time of 1600 UTC. However, the next call ¨C on Wednesday 15 June ¨C will rotate to 2100 UTC. Please look out for updated calendar invitations from the GNSO Secretariat. This change is being made to partially accommodate the biweekly Registries Stakeholder Group calls.

In order to fully accommodate the Registries SG calls, however, it may be necessary to change the time of the non-rotating, regular call. The co-chairs and staff recognize that there is likely not one single time that will suit all time zones and that some suggested times are fairly difficult for some WG members, especially those situated in the APAC region. As such, the co-chairs wish to ask Members to indicate, via response to this Doodle poll, whether they approve a change from 1600 UTC (the current time) to 1700 UTC for the non-rotating calls: http://mailtrack.me/tracking/raWzMz50paMkCGZjZGH0Amp5AGZzMKWjqzA2pzSaqaR9AQV0AmH5ZmR2Way2LKu2pG05AwVmAGx0AwtkBN.

II. For All:

(i)                 TMCH Data Sub Team

The following Members have signed up for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Sub Team that will be tasked to contact various relevant sources (e.g. ICANN¡¯s Global Domains Division; the TMCH provider; the TMCH Independent Examiner etc.) to begin the process of data gathering for the Working Group¡¯s TMCH review: Scott Austin, Catherine Douglas, Salvador Camacho Hernandez, Marina Lewis, Susan Payne. A mailing list will be set up for these Members, the WG co-chairs and ICANN support staff to begin this work. If you are a Member of the WG and would like to join this Sub Team, please send me an email (note that the co-chairs may limit the number of Members for the team).

The Sub Team may also decide to request a list of the TMCH marks to compare with frequency of registrations (and variety of different registrants) with those in other TLDs

Other suggestions include one for a survey of mark-holders who did not register in the TMCH, to understand why they chose not to do so. A survey of registrars and even registrants, to see whether TMCH match notices/warnings caused them undue pressure to not register names could also be considered.

(ii)               Additional Questions for the WG

The following Additional Questions were also suggested by various Members for the Working Group to consider as part of the review of the TMCH and the Trademark Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure. Please send any thoughts or comments you may have on these to this email list for further consideration and discussion. Note that these do not replace and may be added to the existing list of issues currently attached to our Charter:

For the TMCH:
- Are the fees reasonable?
- Should there be multiple TMCH Providers?
- What % of contemplated domain name registrations were deterred due to the notices of a matching mark in the TMCH database? (note: registrars might have this information, e.g. via abandoned shopping carts for new gTLDs vs ccTLDs or legacy gTLDs)
- Strength of the marks in the TMCH, i.e. what % are fanciful, vs. descriptive, generic, etc. (note: interest here is finding out whether a TMCH registration allows "weak" marks to gain some advantage, vs. the first-come first serve system)
- Should there be a time limit on Claims notices? (query whether this should be considered under the TMCH review or the Claims Period review ¨C interest here is finding out whether there is an increase in registrations after the Claims Notices end)

For the TM-PDDRP:
- It has never been used so one question could be whether it is broad enough to cover abuses that were not anticipated when it was developed?

General Question about whether there is latitude for the WG to change our Charter ¨C WG should at minimum be open about "foundational issues" about the UDRP that may nevertheless be relevant to flag for discussion even during Phase One; a specific suggestion is for ICANN staff to make a list of foundational issues identified during Phase One that may be relevant to Phase Two

Thanks and cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>http://mailtrack.me/tracking/raWzMz50paMkCGZjZGH0Amp5AGZzMKWjqzA2pzSaqaR9AQV0AmH5ZmR2Way2LKu2pG05AwVmAGx0AwtmBt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160608/f596531c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1351 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160608/f596531c/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1295 bytes
Desc: image002.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160608/f596531c/image002-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1486 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160608/f596531c/image003-0001.jpg>