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

Tue Apr 11 12:40:00 UTC 2017

I think there's a pretty clear difference between the information in
the TMCH and a family's household belongings and bank accounts.

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:37 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges
<ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
> The‎ problem with this approach is that the whole basis of the alleged abuse
> is ancedotal evidence of a couple of speculators that is being used to cast
> all brand owners as abusing the system and then demanding that there be a
> far flung fishing expedition to find some alleged evidence to justify an
> effort to dismantle a system that was carefully put in place after much
> prior discussion and debate . As I said before and will repeat again, the
> whole basis of the argument is like saying that there must be abuse in
> family X because some humans around the world over the past year have
> committed bad acts, and we must investigate the mom dad and children of
> family X and see if abuse exists. And if you don't let us investigate
> everything -and go into their house and look at all their belongings and
> activities and bank accounts etc etc - then you are obviously hiding
> something and the abuse must exist in family X and be rampant.‎ To put it
> bluntly, there hea been no evidence presented that bona fide brand owners
> are abusing the TMCH system in order to horde common terms or stiffle free
> speech. At best, you have a handful of speculators that gamed the system to
> some extent. This might be a fix or a tweek to the existing regime, but
> should not be a wholesle questioning of the entire system. Let' move on
> already.
>
> ‎
> From: Michael Karanicolas‎
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 11:06 PM‎
> To: Paul Keating
> 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
>
> +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 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
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Confidentiality Notice:
> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
> meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
> 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by
> the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may
> contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney
> work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or
> attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us
> immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original
> transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
>
> ________________________________
>
> ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
> marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
> addressed herein.