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

[Paul Keating]

If there is a confidentiality provision in the TMCH contact, then we must 

Ask for the data
If refused we must then
  Determine the scope of any confidentiality provision
  Determine if what is requested is in fact within the scope of such provision
  Determine if the TMCH had the authority to agree to the provision given their mandate
  Determine whether to seek ICANN support to challenge the provision so as to obtain the information.

This is a basic and neutral legal analysis.


Sent from my iPad

> On 11 Apr 2017, at 23:03, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/4/17 9:43 am, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg wrote:
>> George:
>> 
>> We have all followed this string. We understand that you and a few others believe there need to be wholesale changes to the Sunrise mechanism and the TMCH database (or at least the confidentiality of that data).
>> 
>> 1. Do you have a suggestion for how to improve the Sunrise mechanism?
>> 2. I see very little support for violating the confidentiality provisions of the TMCH contract.
> 
> FWIW I am also all for bringing the transparency of the TMCH database
> into line with those of national trademark registries so that its
> secrecy does not facilitate the kinds of abuses that George has
> uncovered.  I have been an observer until now but I've just upgraded to
> member and plan to join the call tomorrow.
> 
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
> 
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> 
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> 
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg