[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 8 June 2017

Fri Jun 9 13:59:37 UTC 2017

It's very one dimensional to characterize RPMs merely as restrictions that
"favor trademark holders."  RPMs also inure to the benefit of consumers and
to security and trust on the Internet.  There is a significant correlation
between "cybersquatted" domains that violate trademark rights and other
forms of abuse (e.g., phishing, spearphishing, malware distribution, data
breach, fraud, etc. -- not even mentioning IPR-related forms of abuse).
There are a host of reasons that RPMs are consistent with the public
interest.

If, e.g., trademark-based LPRs are in scope for this group, we should treat
them as I (and others) have suggested with so-called private protections --
as objects for study in the larger ecosystem but not within our scope for
"regulation."  Think of them as "non-playable" characters in this video
game.

If we are going to study any so-called private protections, should we also
be studying RPMs offered completely outside the larger gTLD ecosystem, such
as ccTLD based protections, legal recourse, private sales, etc.?

Note that I am not expressing an opinion whether GI-based LPRs are in scope
for this group.

Greg

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Paul Keating <paul at law.es> wrote:

> Interesting question that raises the issue of public interest.
>
> To what extent may a policy impose restraints on the ability of a registry
> to offer domains under such conditions as it feels appropriate?
>
>   Currently restrictions have been imposed that favor trademark holders.
> Has this resulted in over reaching to the detriment of unrestricted
>  registrations by the general public?
>
> Sincerely,
> Paul Keating, Esq.
>
> On Jun 9, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg <
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Claudio,
>
>
>
> Reserving my opinion on the substance of your suggestion, let me see if I
> understand.
>
>
>
> You are saying that:
>
> *The WG has the right to review a circumstance where a registry operator
> chooses to offer an LRP where that LRP has, as one of its criteria, the
> requirement that a domain name registrant be associated with particular
>  intellectual property rights.*
>
> Did I summarize that correctly?  You don’t propose that the WG can look at
> all ROs who offer an LRP, just the ones that use IP rights as eligibility
> criteria?
>
>
>
> Hypothetical:
>
> The RO has already fulfilled its obligation to TM holders by offering a
> Sunrise to all SMD holders.
>
> If the RO then decides it wants to offer a second exclusive access period
> to a particular subset of TM holders (for fun, let’s say the RO wants to
> offer an exclusive registration period for two weeks to  brands that have a
> French trademark registration for bakeries filed between May 1, 2016 and
> June 1, 2016).
>
> In this situation, you believe there is some aspect of this offering that
> the WG has the right to examine?
>
>
>
> I’m not sure what an IPR-related registry service is.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kristine
>
>
>
> *From:* claudio di gangi [mailto:ipcdigangi at gmail.com
> <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 1:21 PM
> *To:* Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org>; Dorrain, Kristine <
> dorraink at amazon.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from the GNSO Review of all
> RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 8 June 2017
>
>
>
> Thank you , Kristine.
>
>
>
> Just to be clear, I was using the LRP as an illustrative example of a type
> of "voluntary" RPM, or maybe we should refer to these as IPR-related
> registry services.
>
>
>
> I would put it in the same category as the DPML service that will be
> discussed by that subteam.
>
>
>
> Hope that clarifies, and I'm happy to answer other questions you may have.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:53 PM Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink at amazon.com>
> wrote:
>
> Claudio, thanks for this explanation.
>
>
>
> I want to follow up on your last point about discussing LRPs.  Limited
> registration periods are unrelated to RPMs.  They are periods during which
> the registry operator can select certain groups for “first come” access to
> the TLD based on the RO’s business plan for that TLD.  If an RO wants to
> use the TMCH, or a GI list, or some organization’s membership list, or some
> other criteria to validate their LRP criteria, then that’s up to them.  Can
> you help me understand what about LRP you think is ripe for discussion on
> the RPMs WG?
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Kristine
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@
> icann.org] *On Behalf Of *claudio di gangi
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 11:37 AM
> *To:* Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from the GNSO Review of all
> RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 8 June 2017
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I was on the call but not on the chat, so helpful to read the chat
> comments.
>
>
>
> As Jonathan suggested on the call, I think we need to get more info from
> Deloitte about the 75 records in the TMCH that went in under the Statute or
> Treaty category.
>
>
>
> Specifically, we need to find out if, how many, and which of 75 records
> (out of the 40,000+) consist of GIs that are not protected as certification
> or collective marks. I don't think Deloitte has provided an answer to this
> question because I don't think they organized things in this manner but I
> leave it up to them to respond.
>
>
>
> Also, I wanted to inform the full group that I withdrew my proposal about
> including GIs in the TMCH because it was based on my misunderstanding of
> the work plan, as I joined the WG midstream. I'm sorry for any confusion
> that caused.
>
>
>
> So the upcoming poll questions on GIs will be based solely on Kathy's and
> Paul's proposals that GIs be removed from the TMCH (hence the importance of
> determing more about the 75 records discussed above if folks want to remove
> any of them).
>
>
>
> The question I asked Phil last night was whether the TMCH questions will
> forclude discussion of other issues relating to GIs further down the road,
> such as the voluntary RPMs. Phil responded that those issues will not be
> closed off based on the TMCH questions, which makes sense to me.
>
>
>
> The example that I provided was .PARIS, which describes a limited
> registration period in their launch plan in which GIs can be protected
> after the Sunrise. Since this is not related to the TMCH proposals we have
> been discussing, Phil stated these issues can be reviewed in that context,
> which is consistent with my understanding.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:41 PM Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Working Group Members,
>
>
>
> Below are the action items from this morning Working Group call. The
> action items, notes, documents/materials, recordings and transcripts will
> be posted on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/
> XjfwAw, when they are available.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>
>
> *Action Items:*
>
>
>
> 1.       *Working Group Co-Chairs* to review the draft poll questions
> regarding the open TMCH questions on Design Marks and Geographic
> Indications, before they are circulated to the full WG mailing list for
> responses.
>
> 2.       *Staff* to send original draft questions on private protections
> to the Sub Team, along with edited version (edited by Jon Nevett and Susan
> Payne)
>
> 3.       *Private Protections Sub Team* to determine adopting, rejecting
> or rewriting questions as it deems appropriate, and provide recommendations
> to the full Working Group for its consideration
>
> 4.       *Staff* to send a reminder to the WG mailing list indicating
> that membership in the Private Protections Sub Team is still open
>
> 5.       *Staff* to compile any comments made on the Working Group
> mailing list regarding the Co-Chairs' questions on private protections, and
> send them to the Sub Team for its consideration
>
> 6.       *Staff* to recirculate previous questions sent to, and answered
> by Deloitte to the Working Group mailing list
>
> 7.       *Trademark Claims Sub Team* to synthesize the three proposals
> (by Greg Shatan, Michael Graham and Brian Winterfeldt) into an appropriate
> Charter question(s), and suggest (if appropriate) what data might be needed
> to be collected
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170609/d9233b9c/attachment-0001.html>