[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

Silver, Bradley Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com
Thu Apr 6 13:10:41 UTC 2017


Michael: Your China example is unfitting.  Sunrise does not limit the content of any speech (as in your example), merely the ability to use a specific domain.   While this is of course a limitation, it is not one that prevents anyone from expressing a particular message.  I agree we should not discard or ignore these limitations, but the analogy to repression of speech in China is way off the mark. 

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 8:45 AM
To: Beckham, Brian
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
> Finally, since the chart references the EFF letter, it is worth 
> mentioning here that the fact that a trademark owner may pay 
> (sometimes extremely high
> amounts) to defensively register a domain name exactly matching its 
> trademark in a Sunrise process (and thereby taking it “off the 
> market”) does not prevent free expression, which may be undertaken in 
> countless other ways.  The number of terms that may be appended to a 
> trademark (not to mention typos) to engage in all manner of speech – 
> fair or otherwise – is, practically-speaking, all but limitless.

As someone whose main practice area is on freedom of expression, I also have to take issue with this statement. It's facile to suggest that no free expression issue exists just because people are left with other avenues to express themselves. In China, people have many ways to express themselves - just so long as they don't criticize the government. You can say whatever you want about your taste in music, art, fashion etc. The fact that wide areas of expression are left available doesn't negate concerns.

Obviously, that's an extreme example - but I only mean to illustrate that this is, by any calculus, a limit on expression. All trademarks are a limitation on speech. That's not to argue that they're not a
*justifiable* limit on freedom of expression - but just that consideration of the impact on speech must be part of the equation, and can't be dismissed based on the fact that other areas remain untouched. And it also, I think, leads us back to the transparency question, since one of the cardinal principles in limiting speech is that rules must be clear - to ensure that other speakers know where the lines are, and what they are or are not allowed to do and say.
This is a major reason why I, and others, argue for the need for transparency here - in order to ensure clarity over which areas are available, and which have been reserved. Restrictions on speech can be justified. Secret restrictions on speech never can.


On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
> Thanks for this Mary,
>
>
>
> It is noted that more discussion is recommended for item 11 which states:
> “Should the scope of the RPMs associated with the TMCH be limited to 
> apply only to TLDs that are related to the categories of goods and 
> services in which the dictionary term(s) within a trademark are protected”.
>
>
>
> While not seeking to stifle further discussion, WG members will recall 
> that this issue was discussed at great length in Copenhagen, and it 
> seemed clear that there was no possibility of achieving consensus on 
> such proposed limitations, for a number of articulated reasons.
>
>
>
> Merely to recall two obvious examples raised in Copenhagen:
>
>
>
> (i)             what limitations to the categories of goods and services
> would apply to TLDs such as “.web” or “.online” or “.fun”? and
>
>
>
> (ii)            this proposed limitation would unfairly impact a brand owner
> such who had submitted a mark to the TMCH in one class but who also 
> had valid marks in other classes which for various reasons had not 
> been submitted to the TMCH, e.g., the mark APPLE in Class 9 for 
> downloadable music and Class 45 for social services (US Reg Nos 
> 3317089 and 1071006 respectively)).
>
>
>
> Therefore, the WG co-chairs may wish to consider whether further 
> discussion on this topic is in fact warranted.
>
>
>
> Finally, since the chart references the EFF letter, it is worth 
> mentioning here that the fact that a trademark owner may pay 
> (sometimes extremely high
> amounts) to defensively register a domain name exactly matching its 
> trademark in a Sunrise process (and thereby taking it “off the 
> market”) does not prevent free expression, which may be undertaken in 
> countless other ways.  The number of terms that may be appended to a 
> trademark (not to mention typos) to engage in all manner of speech – 
> fair or otherwise – is, practically-speaking, all but limitless.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO 
> Arbitration and Mediation Center
> 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 
> 8247 | E brian.beckham at wipo.int | www.wipo.int
>
>
>
>
>
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Mary Wong
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 11:29 PM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working 
> Group call held earlier today
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The following Action Items were noted by staff during the Working 
> Group call held earlier today. Below them you will find some 
> additional questions that several Working Group members typed into the 
> Adobe Connect chat room for your further discussion as to whether or 
> not to forward them to the Analysis Group or otherwise consider. You 
> will also find attached to this email the slides that Greg Rafert and 
> Stacey Chan used for the discussion that took place today.
>
>
>
> ACTION ITEMS:
>
> 1.       Working Group members to consider volunteering for either the
> Sunrise Charter Questions or Private Protections Sub Team (please let 
> staff know if you are interested in joining either/both)
>
>
>
> 2.       Staff to review Work Plan, and to begin planning Sunrise and Claims
> Sub Team calls starting next week
>
>
>
> 3.       Co-Chairs to continue working with staff to develop draft questions
> and proposed scope of work for the Private Protections Sub Team
>
>
>
> 4.       Co-Chairs and staff to coordinate with the Analysis Group for a
> second call with them (question for all: when do you think this will 
> be most useful? Do you have comments or questions based on the 
> attached slides that you think the Analysis Group and/or the Working 
> Group should address?)
>
>
>
> 5.       Co-Chairs and staff to review results of Doodle poll and propose
> call duration times up to ICANN59 and an appropriate weekday for the 
> fourth (APAC timezone-friendly) rotating Working Group call at 0300 
> UTC
>
>
>
> REMINDER - Working Group members to review TMCH Charter Categories 1 & 
> 2 (see attached TMCH Next Steps table) and send a note to this mailing 
> list if they have any additional suggestions or follow up on those two categories.
>
>
>
> Here are the ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS from the Adobe Connect chat room 
> from today; please send any comments you may have or suggestions for 
> follow up to this mailing list:
>
>
>
> ·         Phil Marano: The revised report indicates in several areas that
> conclusions could not be reached because various parties failed to 
> respond to requests from Analysis Group for additional data.  It would 
> be great to receive additional context from Analysis Group on the 
> specific requests it made, to whom, and any reasons given for failure 
> to respond or provide the requested data.
>
>
>
> ·         Michael Graham: If the registration application was abandoned AG
> could not see the DOMAIN applied for, so there's no way of tracing 
> duplicate pings, etc.?
>
>
>
> ·         Kristine Dorrain: Do we know if a user who got a Claims Notice and
> abandoned their attempt to register then subsequently decided later to 
> go back and register the domain despite the Claims Notice?
>
>
>
> ·         Griffin Barnett: Is there data on abandonment of registrations
> where there is no Claims Notice (e.g. legacy TLDs)? Do we have any 
> data on abandonment during the same periods for those starting the 
> registration process but not receiving a Claims Notice?
>
>
>
> Finally, I also attach the Notes that were taken by staff in the Adobe 
> Connect notes pod during the Working Group call held earlier today – 
> please note that these have been prepared solely to assist the Working 
> Group with recalling and progressing its work, and are not intended to 
> replace or supersede the call recording or meeting transcript, which 
> are the official records of the meeting.
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary
>
>
>
>
>
> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic 
> message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected 
> information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please 
> immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its 
> attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

======================================================================


 
Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack.  If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices at timewarner.com 
 
 


=================================================================
This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the
addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding,
or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on
the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom
he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies
from your computer or storage system. Thank you.
=================================================================



More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list