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

Jeff Neuman jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
Wed Mar 29 16:35:48 UTC 2017


Kathy,

You may be correct as to what it existing when it left the STI, but then the IAG was formed (thank Mary for finding that).  I was a member of the IAG as were others.  Just like the STI made recommendations on how to deal with the IRT report, the IAG made recommendations on how to implement the STI's recommendations.

Best regards,

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] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:14 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services


I have yet to review this material, but I have been reaching out to STI Members. When the TMCH Database left the STI, GNSO Council, and ICANN Board acceptance it was an open database.

I think we have an interesting issue to review.

Best, Kathy

On 3/29/2017 10:17 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone,

If it will help, the need to maintain the confidentiality of the TMCH Database (TMDB) was discussed by the Implementation Assistance Group (IAG), working between October 2011 and May 2012 and consisting of community volunteers. The IAG was convened to develop and recommend business requirements around specific issues in the provision of Sunrise and Claims Notification services through the TMCH.

The attached document excerpts some text from the IAG's final report that seems to indicate that the IAG considered the question as to whether and why the TMDB was to be a confidential database. Please note that staff is providing this text purely for informational purposes, and takes no position as to whether or not the TMDB should continue to remain confidential.

Cheers
Mary

From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating <Paul at law.es><mailto:Paul at law.es>
Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 23:08
To: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com><mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>
Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>, Michael Karanicolas <michael at law-democracy.org><mailto:michael at law-democracy.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services

I've not yet seen any such articulated reasons.  Care to provide them?

Sent from my iPad

On 28 Mar 2017, at 22:40, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>> wrote:
Paul:

I think the proponents of the closed database have repeatedly articulated the benefits they see in a closed database. That is the status quo. In order to change the status quo, it is the proponents for an open system that need to articulate (persuasively) an overriding need or benefit for such a change.

J. Scott

<image001.gif>

J. Scott Evans

408.536.5336 (tel)

345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544

Director, Associate General Counsel

408.709.6162 (cell)

San Jose, CA, 95110, USA

Adobe. Make It an Experience.

jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>

www.adobe.com[adobe.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adobe.com&d=DwMCaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=xzS0_a7gh_CbP93HDCn4gCiEPf61PKMba02eWelzxC0&s=QGu3yeTOdbOcCfjnVYkndyNSP8JSD3FM3-F3Icw1jYE&e=>








From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Keating <paul at law.es<mailto:paul at law.es>>
Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 12:21 PM
To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>>
Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>, Michael Karanicolas <michael at law-democracy.org<mailto:michael at law-democracy.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR INFORMATION: Letter from trademark scholars and information on Deloitte Ancillary Services

Question.

solutions for the issues and concerns that have been



mitigated by having the database be closed

Can someone please list the issues and concerns at issue here?

And, how has closing the database mitigated any of them?

Sent from my iPad

On 28 Mar 2017, at 21:07, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>> wrote:
solutions for the issues and concerns that have been
mitigated by having the database be closed




_______________________________________________

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170329/dd623922/attachment.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list