[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services

Tue Mar 28 17:56:57 UTC 2017

Paul,

That still doesn't answer the question of who actually wrote the letter.
It's clear who signed onto it, but there's no evidence of who wrote it.
 (And BTW, EFF is not "a scholar.")

As for reading the letter, I don't think anyone was suggesting that it not
be read.  But there's no reason to give it special consideration either.

Greg

*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc at gmail.com

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Paul Keating <Paul at law.es> wrote:

> O please.  If I wrote the letter you all should not care a whit.  If EFF
> and other scholars (all listed) wrote the letter, I ask that we all stand
> up and read it.
>
> On 3/28/17, 6:39 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil"
> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>
> >With respect Paul, even if I agreed with that characterization, no one is
> >"heavier" than anyone else at ICANN.
> >
> >Kiran Malancharuvil
> >Policy Counselor
> >MarkMonitor
> >415-419-9138 (m)
> >
> >Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> >
> >> On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Paul Keating <Paul at law.es> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well it was written but some relatively heavies in the legal field.
> >>
> >> On 3/28/17, 4:42 PM, "Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg"
> >> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Many of the signatories aren't members of the working group. When
> >>> input/comment is received by an ICANN working group by outside parties,
> >>> the working group often invites those people to attend a meeting to
> >>> facilitate the discussion so that there can be meaningful dialogue and
> >>>a
> >>> better common understanding of the issues raised.
> >>>
> >>> There is a prescribed time in the icann policy development process for
> >>> solicitation of comments, as well as review and consideration of public
> >>> comment. My question (for staff, to be clear) is why we are considering
> >>> this public comment out of turn. Why does it have elevated importance?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Kiran
> >>>
> >>> Kiran Malancharuvil
> >>> Policy Counselor
> >>> MarkMonitor
> >>> 415-419-9138 (m)
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> >>>
> >>>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rebecca Tushnet
> >>>> <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) Yes. (2) Invited by whom? (3) It's my understanding that all
> >>>> comments should be considered; are you aware of any we're ignoring?
> >>>> Rebecca Tushnet
> >>>> Georgetown Law
> >>>> 703 593 6759
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg
> >>>> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:
> >>>>> Agree with Jeff.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, are these "trademark scholars" represented in the group? Are
> >>>>> they invited in for discussion? Why is this letter any more important
> >>>>> than any other public comment?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kiran
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
> >>>>> Policy Counselor
> >>>>> MarkMonitor
> >>>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Neuman
> >>>>> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks Mary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Co-Chairs,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can I assume that with respect to the EFF letter, the only items we
> >>>>> would be discussing from that letter at this point are their comments
> >>>>> with respect to design marks and the transparency of the TMCH
> >>>>>database?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am not saying the other comments are not important, but with
> >>>>>respect
> >>>>> to this Working Group at this time, we are not yet addressing those
> >>>>> other issues.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would strongly urge that we not engage yet in the other discussion
> >>>>> around the other comments at this point (namely, trademark rights in
> >>>>> general), as I think that could lead us down a large rabbit hole and
> >>>>> considerably slow down out work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> >>>>> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
> >>>>> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
> >>>>> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
> >>>>> E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or
> >>>>> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> >>>>> T: +1.703.635.7514
> >>>>> M: +1.202.549.5079
> >>>>> @Jintlaw
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From:
> >>>>> gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> >>>>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:15 AM
> >>>>> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> >>>>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark
> >>>>>scholars
> >>>>> and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> During the ICANN58 Working Group sessions in Copenhagen, the
> >>>>>following
> >>>>> two matters came up for which staff is now following up with the
> >>>>> requested document (for #1) and information (for #2).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Item #1: Letter of 10 March 2017 from some trademark scholars and
> >>>>> practitioners to our Working Group co-chairs expressing concerns with
> >>>>> certain aspects of the TMCH:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/10/tm_scholars_
> letter_to_icann_final
> >>>>>.p
> >>>>> df.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Item #2: Question regarding the Ancillary Services that Deloitte is
> >>>>> permitted to provide under its Validation Agreement with ICANN,
> >>>>>subject
> >>>>> to ICANN's authorization.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Currently, two Ancillary Services have been approved by ICANN:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1.       Extended Claims Services
> >>>>> The extended claims services provide the Trademark Holder or
> >>>>>Trademark
> >>>>> Agent, as applicable, with an electronic notification when a domain
> >>>>> name registered in an Eligible TLD matches one or more of such
> >>>>>party's
> >>>>> recorded labels with the TMCH.  The extended claims services does not
> >>>>> include a domain name pre-registration notification (i.e. a
> >>>>> notification to the potential registrant of a domain name that the
> >>>>> domain name such registrant intends to register matches a label
> >>>>> recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2.       Audit Report
> >>>>> Deloitte may offer an audit report service for Trademark Holders and
> >>>>> Trademark Agents with active Trademark Records recorded in the
> >>>>> Trademark Clearinghouse.  Such audit reports shall consist primarily
> >>>>>of
> >>>>> a listing of matches between their recorded labels within the
> >>>>>Trademark
> >>>>> Clearinghouse and domain names registered in an Eligible TLD.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> FYI, Deloitte's contract with ICANN is for an initial period expiring
> >>>>> on the fifth anniversary of ICANN's entry into a Registry Agreement
> >>>>> under the New gTLD Program, with consecutive one-year renewals
> >>>>> thereafter. Although Deloitte currently serves as the sole TMCH
> >>>>> validator, ICANN may appoint additional validators once ten Qualified
> >>>>> Sunrise Periods have been completed under the New gTLD Program.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks and cheers
> >>>>> Mary
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> >>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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
> >>
> >>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170328/600144ae/attachment-0001.html>