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

[Michael Karanicolas]

+1 Paul.

I hate to sound like a broken record on the transparency stuff, but it
feels like we're at an impasse, and this is the avenue forward.

We have one side insisting that abuses of the system are taking place,
while the other insists that they're not. Isn't the answer here to open
things up and allow for an honest accounting of the system? And if the side
that denies there's a problem is correct, they'll be proven so.
Misinformation and rumour thrive in a climate of secrecy. So let's figure
out what's actually going on, and chart a path forward based on that.



On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Paul Keating <paul at law.es> wrote:

> With information like that below, and recognizing that the TMCH sunrise
> and notice programs were intended to provide a balanced approach:
>
> 1.  I fail to see any reason why we should not be allowed to view the
> database; or
>
> 2.  Treat the failure to be transparent as conclusive evidence that the
> system is being gamed beyond the balance point, thus justifying revision.
>
> I have seen several emails protesting such transparency but although
> having asked several times, I have never seen any evidence contradicting
> the facts noted below, or any legal basis for precluding transparency.
>
> I join George in asking that this issue be opened to the air so to speak
> and that we push for disclosure of the TMCH database so that we can perform
> our job to determine if the programs are being abused.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 10 Apr 2017, at 23:27, Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham at expedia.com>
> wrote:
>
> George:
>
>
>
> Again, apologies for coming into this conversation late, but could you
> clarify what you meaning by the term “gaming”?
>
>
>
> The only usage I can call to mind in connection with the TMCH would be (1)
> the acquisition of a trademark registration without actual or intended use
> of the trademark in order to register the registration in the TMCH, or (2)
> the fabrication of evidence of Use and its submission to the TMCH in order
> to entitle one to Sunrise registration.
>
>
>
> Michael R. Graham
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@
> icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *George Kirikos
> *Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2017 2:18 PM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the
> Working Group call held earlier today
>
>
>
> Some more examples of gaming of the TMCH sunrises, via public blog posts:
>
> 1. via Kevin Murphy of DomainIncite.com:
>
> http://domainincite.com/16492-how-one-guy-games-new-gtld-sunrise-periods
>
> DIRECT, CLOUD, and SOCIAL
>
> Note the comments below that blog post by John Berryhill, who wrote "…and
> the attorney who was unable to use her client’s US registration for
> “PHYSICS” with the inconvenient disclaimer, and who then obtained a late
> change in the TMCH rules allowing figurative registrations, so that her
> client could use a foreign logo registration to obtain the TMCH entry for
> that word… is she an IPC member, Kristina?"
>
> implying that the common term "PHYSICS" might also be gamed, by an IPC
> member. And there are other comments by him and others on that page that
> are worth reading.
>
> 2. via Konstantinos Zournas of OnlineDomain.com:
>
> http://onlinedomain.com/2014/04/15/legal/fake-trademarks-
> stealing-generic-domains-in-new-gtld-sunrises/
>
> regarding CLOUD, SOCIAL, BUILD, BET, VACATION, DISCOUNT, WEDDING and
> others (...etc.) More than 30 TMs of very common terms are mentioned, and
> over 300 domains were found by that one blogger. There are 46 comments to
> that blog post, too.
>
> I renew the call for a public comment period, so that more of these kinds
> of examples of can be submitted to the working group.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269 <8%20(416)%20588-02-69>
>
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.
> georgetown.edu> wrote:
>
> When you refuse to say what you would count as evidence of a problem, that
> leaves us with the evidence I, and George, and Bret, and others have
> offered--if we want to call them "Group 2" TMCH registrants that would make
> sense to me.
>
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
>
> Georgetown Law
>
> 703 593 6759
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170411/35951ee7/attachment-0001.html>