[gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group
Terri Agnew
terri.agnew at icann.org
Wed Mar 29 21:14:18 UTC 2017
Dear All,
Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3,
Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all
Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held
on Wednesday, 29 March 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted
on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Jb-RAw
MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-29mar17-en.mp3
Adobe Connect recording:
<https://participate.icann.org/p5s2obdl4pr/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=40844f1d049ed36d
8b5428de305871e4377fc5dc11a1c7741645e01567ccb573>
https://participate.icann.org/p5s2obdl4pr/
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master
Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/>
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/
Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri Agnew
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 29 March 2017:
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms
(RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 29 March 2017 at
16:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_J
b-2DRAw
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
Jb-2DRAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSF
pCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=bxc8XkZTyThHS0yUYg5AISqmEfT25DrJDWYxkiMZ
4Zc&s=-l9c8EI2nPORjs-iXPzH7hrwjBAauNtLgTxu70pBdqk&e>
&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=bxc8XkZTyThHS0yUYg5AISqmEfT25DrJDWYxkiMZ4Zc&s=-l
9c8EI2nPORjs-iXPzH7hrwjBAauNtLgTxu70pBdqk&e=
Poncelet Ileleji:Hello all
George Kirikos:Hi folks.
Monica Mitchell:hello everybody!
Paul Tattersfield:Hello everyone
Ankur Raheja:Hello
Martin Silva Valent:Hi all, gonna be in another call for the firts
minutes, I will join you as soon as I can.
George Kirikos:Someone needs to mute (*6 to mute / unmute).
Steve Levy:Hello all
Yuri Chumak:greetings from Toronto
Griffin Barnett:Need to attend another call at 12:30 but plan to remain in
the AC room
Philip Corwin:Good day. Nice to see that participation in this WG remains
high.
GraceM:Hi everyone
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I have an update in my SOI (reflected in the
portal), I have added RDS PDP WG, and RPM PDP WG to .12. of the SOI form
Kathy Kleiman:Not raised now!
Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Mary, you're fading in and
out.
Reg Levy - MMX:Mary, your voice is coming and going
George Kirikos:Can we isolate who is causing the noise?
Rebecca L Tushnet:Mary's still going in and out for me.
Terri Agnew:finding the line
George Kirikos:Thanks, Terri.
Mary Wong:Sorry for bad audio
Mary Wong:Think I fixed it now
Paul Keating:hello all. Sorry I am late
Terri Agnew:background noise is from J Scott's telephone line (on a train)
George Kirikos:Phil has a hand up.
Rebecca L Tushnet:I'm sorry, I'm missing what J Scott has proposed
Paul Keating:someone needs to mute their phone or move to a quieter place
please.
Kiran Malancharuvil:@Paul, the chair is on a train. He can't mute.
Terri Agnew:background noise is from J Scott's line (he is on a train)
Paul Keating:ok thanks
George Kirikos:@Rebecca: he said perhaps combining GIs/treaty marks with
design/figurative marks.
George Kirikos:i.e. combine 7/8 in some way, at least for discussion.
Paul Keating:+1
George Kirikos:+1 Phil
Greg Shatan:I've been cut off. And trying to get back in.
Poncelet Ileleji:.+1 Phil
Greg Shatan:Operator is not answering.
Terri Agnew:alerting op
Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Kristine.
Rebecca L Tushnet:+1 Kristine
Terri Agnew:Greg is back on audio
Colin O'Brien:+1 Kristine
Kiran Malancharuvil:I appreciate the attempt at being more efficient, but
they aren't easily combined
Petter Rindforth:Let's not extending it too much. Then we will also have
to consider other kinds of "name rights" - and there are some out there...
;-)
Lori Schulman:Agree with Kristine. We are comparing apples to oranges I
think.
Paul Tattersfield:+1 Kristine
George Kirikos:IGOs have certain blocking rights via Article 6ter, which
are not trademarks, but have certain similarities, and they are expected to
be added to the TMCH at some point.
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Greg, do we have an example of
a mark that was entered under the "statute or treaty" section that is not
actually a mark?
George Kirikos:IGOs = Intergovernmental Organizations, e.g. UN, World
Health Organization, World Bank, etc.
Greg Shatan:@Kristine -- Geographic Indicators may be examples of items
entered under the "statute or treaty" that are not marks.
George Kirikos:Perhaps TMCH needs to be renamed to "Rights Clearinghouse"
(RCH, if ICANN hasn't already reserved that acronym). :-)
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@ Greg, I can imagine a
hypothetical, that's not the problem. I'm looking for an example.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):UN is it an example of a such trademark?
Greg Shatan:I would not necessarily expect 6ter entries to be added to the
TMCH.
Paul Keating:@Greg I agree with you.
Scott Austin:Do we have any concrete examples of what "pseudomarks" have
been permitted that are offensive or questionable
Petter Rindforth:GAC has their own list of IGO's that does not follow
Article 6ter
Paul Keating:@Mary, I suggest we move forward as per Phil's sugestion.
Deal with those we can deal with and all others are pushed.
George Kirikos:@Maxim: UN is an example of a name protected by Article
6ter of the Paris Convention, see:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_article6ter
_en_
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_article6te
r_en_&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI
gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=bxc8XkZTyThHS0yUYg5AISqmEfT25DrJDWYxkiMZ4Zc
&s=_pjRfljrooPIyfgGXT7pqV-OidVF8i0haW4j6Ma-GHU&e>
&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=bxc8XkZTyThHS0yUYg5AISqmEfT25DrJDWYxkiMZ4Zc&s=_p
jRfljrooPIyfgGXT7pqV-OidVF8i0haW4j6Ma-GHU&e=
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George thnx
Kathy Kleiman:@Scott: no, we don't have specific examples. Only the number
-75 accepted by Deloitte to date
Philip Corwin:Was thinking the same as George -- given that TMCH already
consists not just of TMs but of TM+50 terms, geo indicators, and statute and
treaty marks, it's clear that there is a lot more than Trademarks in the
TMCH
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Intergovernmental Organizations have special
separate protection under new gtlds RA .. with reference to
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_resourc
es_registries_reserved
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_resour
ces_registries_reserved&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5
cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=bxc8XkZTyThHS0yUYg5AISqmE
fT25DrJDWYxkiMZ4Zc&s=951vgYaut_LzqbBYvwJW2S_lE5uvlmfEY17AwZIVmdQ&e>
&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=bxc8XkZTyThHS0yUYg5AISqmEfT25DrJDWYxkiMZ4Zc&s=95
1vgYaut_LzqbBYvwJW2S_lE5uvlmfEY17AwZIVmdQ&e= ... do we need to discuss it
here?
Paul Keating:@phil, If we do not know what marks are in the database how
can we determine there is no abuse?
Greg Shatan:I don't agree that there' a lot more than trademarks in the
TMCH. "Statute or treaty" marks were intended to be trademarks, and I don't
think GIs (unless they are marks) were intended to be in the TMCH.
George Kirikos:@Maxim: That's a separate working group, I believe, re: the
IGOs reserved list.
Paul Keating:@Mary please read my question
Mary Wong:@Paul, sorry I didn't see it till now
Paul Keating:+1 to delay until we know what the other group has concluded
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I meant do we have other examples of items protected
by statute or treaty .?
Kathy Kleiman:Analysis Group should be joining us next week.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):which have no protection
Philip Corwin:@Paul--we can review the CPH transcript, but my recollection
is that deloitte told us that only about 1% of all terms registered in the
TMCH came in under the TM+50 exception.Assuming they are vetting them
properly (determining they were won in litigation or a UDRP) there would be
no abuse in the registration.
Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, there is a request from Paul Keating to read his
question... a page back.
George Kirikos:e.g. .MAKEUP ($5,000/yr) would only allow beauty-related
TMCH entries
Paul Keating:added discussion.
George Kirikos:Yes, more discussion needed.
Paul Keating:ok
Kurt Pritz:There was a fairly strong sentiment at the ICANN meeting that
the single provider model was fairly strong
Steve Levy:Are there other groups that have requested to be a
clearinghouse? If there's no demand to provide this service is this question
moot?
George Kirikos:Single provider, vs. single validator?
Paul Keating:Is tgere a WG dealing specifically with #12?
Kurt Pritz:I think Phil summarized this at the meeting and could recall it
here
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 @George
George Kirikos:ICANN has the right to audit Deloitte. They should exercise
that right, to look at the financials.
Kurt Pritz:I agree with George there
George Kirikos:(as per Fadi Chehadi's blog post)
Steve Levy:Thanks, Mary
George Kirikos:*Chehade, even
Paul Keating:Do we actaully know who is involved with Deloite? Who is
CHIP?
Jon Nevett:Definite sentiment of registries that the $5K per TLD pass
through to Deloite was too high
Kurt Pritz:CHIP was the developer of much of the software
Paul Keating:I agree with J.Scott's suggestion
George Kirikos:+1 Jon. Windfall, I think. An audit would reveal that sort
of stuff.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Jon
Lillian Fosteris:+1 Jon
Kurt Pritz:When we look at cost - we should look at all cost factors:
Deloitte pricing, whether scope can be reduced, charges by others (e.g.,
agents)
George Kirikos:Registries are complaining about losing money, yet want a
2nd round? Absurd.
Mary Wong:@Kurt, I believe J Scott and others suggested that this WG
doesn't look into the details of cost but make a general recommendation for
addressing in implementation phase.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it looks like 2nd round is noting to be brands only
George Kirikos:I think they want a 2nd round so that they can go back and
rewrite the contract terms of the 1st round (i.e. a backdoor bailout).
Paul Keating:@Mary I agree. We need to focus and this is something for
which there appears to be a specific WG to deal with.
Kurt Pritz:What did we decide on uestion 12
Mary Wong:@Kurt, I believe it was that operational and implementation
concerns should be dealt with under implementation
Paul Keating:is this ONLY about agents?
Mary Wong:@Paul, I think J Scott was referring to Deloitte's note to us
that they do not have information on where rights holders who use TM agents
are located.
George Kirikos:Definitely an open question.
Paul Keating:Agreed continued discussions needed. NOW? or later?
Kathy Kleiman:@Paul: interesting question. Would it be better to review
#15 after the various rights protection mechanisms?
Jeff Neuman:Everyone should also read the IAG report Mary sent around
today. This was a group which had representation from the community that
came to the conclusion that the data should be confidential.
Paul Keating:Transperency is absolutely needed to continuously detemrine
what is included and to audit how they are being used. Otherwise there is
no ability to audit or have public debate.
Michael R Graham:Sorry for the delay -- could not find call-in info.
Thanks for the help!
Paul Keating:The TMCH allows pre-emptive rights.
Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Susan
Beth Allegretti:+1 Susan
Kiran Malancharuvil:Correct Susan. Totally agree.
Michael R Graham:+1 Susan
bradley silver:+1 Susan
Colin O'Brien:+1 Susan
Griffin Barnett:+1
Paul Keating:I absolutely disagree with Susan (no offense)
George Kirikos:It's Susan's choice to register a subset, as I noted. No
one forced her to submit any, all, or a subset.
J. Scott Evans:That is not my recollection at all.
J. Scott Evans:on the IRT, kristina rosette argued that the data needed to
be confidential
George Kirikos:If the costs were a lot lower (as I've argued they would
be), she could certainly choose to register all of Facebook's marks into the
TMCh.
Mary Wong:Staff note - neither the IRT nor the STI had a specific
recommendation on confidentiality. Perhaps it was an assumption (one way or
the other) and it was felt there was no need to specify?
Susan Kawaguchi:@ George there is a much more work to entering trademarks
into a database than the TMCH fee
George Kirikos:@Susan: yes, but ultimately it's your choice.
Kiran Malancharuvil:Perhaps, George, you can pose that as a question to the
community. Instead of assuming, can you ASK whether cost would be a factor
in registering entire portfolios? I can tell you that the answer will not
support your hypothesis.
George Kirikos:I had a second point I forgot to make orally. Most small
businesses only have a SINGLE mark to protect. The folks who are complaining
about the "subset inference" issue are global multinationals (i.e. the
richest companies) --- less sympathy there, sorry.
Griffin Barnett:Want to amplify Mary's point, above -- I am looking
through the STI report and have not been able to find a reference one way or
the other regarding open vs. confidential TMDB
J. Scott Evans:That is my recollection as well. This was debated
exhaustively on the IRT and STI
Kiran Malancharuvil:George, I work with many small businesses and not for
profits. It's incorrect that they only have one mark to protect.
George Kirikos:TM holders make a choice whether to submit the marks into
the TMCH, though. So, they can't complain about inferences being made, when
those inferences are a result of their own choices.
Mary Wong:@Jeff, I think it was Dakar and/or Singapore
Michael R Graham:Confidentiality was a major subject of discussion in TMCH
discussions.
George Kirikos:@Kiran: true, many have zero marks. :-)
Susan Kawaguchi:It would be interesting to hear what harm has. occured due
to a closed database other than generic trademarks allowed. That is an
issue to take up with governments that issues the trademark registration
George Kirikos:No, 39 minutes.
Jeff Neuman:Sorry for killing time, but i had to correct the record on
when things were done and why
George Kirikos:Is this just a scheduling call, then?
Kiran Malancharuvil:Correct Susan. I think most of the harms articulated
have nothing to do with the TMCH and everything to do with some of the
registrations.
Kiran Malancharuvil:I appreciated Jeff's comments of clarification.
Jon Nevett:what about releasing a simple list of dictionary terms in the
TMCH? Not opening up the entire database with all the records.
Rebecca L Tushnet:Susan, it's not an issue for the issuing gov't because
the mark may not be generic for the goods and services in the home
registration; it just becomes all-encompassing in the TMCH.
Philip Corwin:Given the strongly held views on this
transparency/confidentiality question, I do not forsee us reaching consensus
on this matter unless someone has a middle ground proposal they think may
garner consensus. I would personally favor transparency but I respect the
views of those arguing to the contrary.
George Kirikos:#16 and #13 are essentially the same.
Philip Corwin:@Jon--that option might be worth further discussion, IMHO
Rebecca L Tushnet:+1 Philip
Greg Shatan:@Jon, what would be the point of releasing "dictionary terms"?
As trademarks, these are just as valid as coined terms.
Griffin Barnett:+1Greg
Terri Agnew:muting the line
Jon Nevett:deal with the gaming concerns per Kiran's point above
George Kirikos:We know from the Analysis Group report the top 10 most
requested TMCH claims terms are all common dictionary terms used by many
potential users.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Amr is it possible to make history size of the chat
window bigger?
George Kirikos:Correct, anonymized. Just the number of marks, bucketed.
e.g. 1500 companies registered 1 mark, 3000 registered 2 marks, 3 registered
between 500 and 1000 marks, etc.
Philip Corwin:On questions 13 & 16, I'm generally in favor of deep-sixing
all the nebulous philosophical questions on the RPMs. We should be dealing
with specific proposals for change. If anyone thinks the operations of the
RPMs disadvantages some group they should propose a specific means of
addressing that, not pose open-ended questions with no specific concrete
remedy.
Greg Shatan:@Jon, That's way overbroad to deal with "gaming" concerns.
Although I note that "Donuts" is a dictionary term.... :-)
Jon Nevett:Donuts is in the TMCH -- happy to be transparent about that
Greg Shatan:Also a Simpsons term....
George Kirikos:We can possibly get a (recacted) copy of the contract
between ICANN & Deloitte?
Rebecca L Tushnet:Of course, agreements can be changed if the policy
changes.
Amr Elsadr:@Maxim: Does that help?
George Kirikos:*redacted
Jon Nevett:@greg do you think that there is a less overbroad way to deal
with the gaming?
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Amr, can not say now .. some of the chat messages
gone already
George Kirikos:But, Deloitte's publication might be broader than the
rights granted to them by ICANN.
Amr Elsadr:@Maxim: You can't scroll up in the chat window?
George Kirikos:i.e. Deloitte might be asserting confidentiality, when it
might not actually exist.
Lori Schulman:We never scream.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I thought Deloitte has rights for the contents of
the TMCH
Rebecca L Tushnet:presumably it's not confidential when there's a match on
an attempted registration
Lori Schulman:just emphatically make our points. :)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Amr , yes
Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves
Jeff Neuman:I believe that the Ts and Cs do require that the TMCH may only
use the data for the purposes set forth in the desciption of the services
Jeff Neuman:It is why they can disclose the data pursuant to a claim but
for no other purposes
Greg Shatan:That needs to be considered in the context of the expectation
of confidentiality by registrants, except to the extent a single
registration is released in a claims notice.
Jeff Neuman:I believe that was also a recommendation from the IAG and
others
Amr Elsadr:@Maxim: As usual, transcripts of the chat will also be
circulated following the call.
Mike Rodenbaugh:dislike
Steve Levy:I feel we should be able to get things done in 60 minute calls
George Kirikos:Perhaps it should be on the mailing list.
Poncelet Ileleji:+1
Kathy Kleiman:90 minute calls through the end of June.
Lori Schulman:2 hours calls are too much
Jeff Neuman:The license given by trademark owners to deloitte is very
narrow. The data may not be used for any other purposes
George Kirikos:Given that everyone here could obviously make it for 90
minutes -- biased sample.
Kathy Kleiman:I think we are reevaluating after that...
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):120 seems to be much
Lori Schulman:I am in favor of short calls but our need to discuss things
seems to chew up time
Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):You and we acknowledge that the information
provided in the Trademark Records are predominantlycomprised of information
owned or provided by Trademark Holders and informationthat is in the public
domain (e.g. trademark registration numbers) and that any rights in
theunderlying trademarks remain solely held by the applicable Trademark
Holder. We representand warrant that we will not disclose or use any
Trademark Record information for any purposeother than providing the
services contemplated by this Agreement or as required by law.
Phil Marano (Mayer
Brown):https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademark-2Dc
learinghouse.com_sites_default_files_files_downloads_TMCH-2520terms-2520and-
2520conditions-2520-2D-2520Trademark-2520Agent-2520-2D-25201.1.pdf&d=DwICaQ&
c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfq
a0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=bxc8XkZTyThHS0yUYg5AISqmEfT25DrJDWYxkiMZ4Zc&s=_u6QlnV8KLUA
4vQKLO61ZNMnKKztb5epUIvmSkSqP4A&e=
Lori Schulman:Private lists like Donuts?
Jeff Neuman:Thanks Phil
Mary Wong:@Lori, yes
Lori Schulman:I am not sure that is in scope.
Paul Keating:@Mary, regarding the question to Deloite, please note that a
"legal restraint" on disclosure of all or part of the database includes any
legal restraint. Thus, if there is a statutue then that is stated. If it
contractual then that is stated. However, a TOS on te TMCH or Deloite
website is the creation of TMCH and is not a legal restricdtion preventing
TMCH from disclosing all or a part.
George Kirikos:Rightside has something like that, too, see:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainnamewire.com_2017_
03_28_rightside-2Dchanges-2Dbrand-2Dblocking-2Dservice-2Dnew-2Dtlds_
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainnamewire.com_2017
_03_28_rightside-2Dchanges-2Dbrand-2Dblocking-2Dservice-2Dnew-2Dtlds_&d=DwIC
aQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9
Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=bxc8XkZTyThHS0yUYg5AISqmEfT25DrJDWYxkiMZ4Zc&s=FrgGh02Y2
1FcFFKsELsL_hAR3lvaahg6h-faZyBZMWM&e>
&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=bxc8XkZTyThHS0yUYg5AISqmEfT25DrJDWYxkiMZ4Zc&s=Fr
gGh02Y21FcFFKsELsL_hAR3lvaahg6h-faZyBZMWM&e=
Kathy Kleiman:Would one subteam work?
Paul Keating:@JS can you please describe what is the scope of each
subteam?
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):good idea
Jeff Neuman:@Paul - We are not talking about a click through TOS for a
website....we are talking about an actual contract between trademark owners
and Deloitte. Trademark owners are entering into a CONTRACT with the TMCH
to perform specifically enumerated services in exchange for consideration.
So, yes by contract the rights to disclosure can absolutely be prevented.
Jon Nevett:FYI -- DPML does not require use of the TMCH
Paul Keating:@JNewman: I did not presume otherwise However, contractual
issues are a subset of a statutory prohibition.
Mary Wong:@Jon, yes - that is not how the TMCH is set up, we believe.
Jon Nevett:Registries could use the TMCH or not -- they could validate on
their own or not even validate -- some use the TMCH as a matter of
efficiency
Paul Keating:ok
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I have to drop a little early
for another obligation today. Please circulate any calls for subteam
members to the list once the WG decides on what subteams should be
constituted.
Jon Nevett:Phil, my point is that we don't have to use the TMCH
Paul Keating:I also unfortunatey need to leave for a family obligation.
Thank you to all and thanks JScott for juggling so well.
Lori Schulman:Burn-out is a real thing folks. Thanks for the
clarification Mary.
Lori Schulman:I like J Scott's compromise.
Jeff Neuman:i need to drop as well. Thanks.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):sunrise is more complex process that claims ...
does it sound reasonable that the devoted time is going to be longer?
Steve Levy:Agree. Makes more efficient use of time
Greg Shatan:@Jon. Good ponts. I would not want to see "private services"
treated the same as Sunrise and Claims which are clearly within our remit.
To do so would be "bootstrapping."
Philip Corwin:@Jon --
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.donuts.domains_servi
ces_dpml_dpml-2Doverview
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.donuts.domains_serv
ices_dpml_dpml-2Doverview&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4
I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=bxc8XkZTyThHS0yUYg5AISq
mEfT25DrJDWYxkiMZ4Zc&s=ycfasEEu2ROfJiQ_qpoX6lgD92qMxsOaPpcpdJTd9Cg&e>
&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=bxc8XkZTyThHS0yUYg5AISqmEfT25DrJDWYxkiMZ4Zc&s=yc
fasEEu2ROfJiQ_qpoX6lgD92qMxsOaPpcpdJTd9Cg&e= -- "Prior to submitting a DPML
Application, DPML Applicants first must provide information to the TMCH to
obtain an SMD File (as detailed in the TMCH Guidelines). Once the TMCH has
validated a mark, it will issue the mark holder an SMD File. Each DPML
Application must (i) include one or more SMD Files corresponding to the
applied-for label(s) and (ii) meet the qualifications specified by ICANN and
detailed in the TMCH Guidelines, as they may change from time to time."
Jon Nevett:Phil, again you are missing my point
Jon Nevett:we didn't have to use the TMCH -- we chose to do so as a matter
of efficiency -- there is no requirement that we made that decision
Mike Rodenbaugh:I don't think the WG agreed on 90-minute calls. Such
decisions ought not be taken without input from the mail list.
George Kirikos:+1 Mike
George Kirikos:There's a sample bias, since everyone here could make it
for 90 mins. Those who couldn't aren't here.
George Kirikos:(plus, several people dropped off before 90 mins,
indicating potential issues)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):is it possible to use polls about questions - like
RDS PDP WG does?
Philip Corwin:Jon, if you didn't use the TMCH or some other means of TM
verification how would you know that the block related to a real TM and that
the blocker was the rights holder?
George Kirikos:+1 Maxim. 2 polls, 90 mins vs 60, and day-of-week question.
Jon Nevett:Phil -- scroll up
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 George
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it will be like more homework vs. more seminar time
Jon Nevett:we could do our own validation if we wanted to -- just like
registries did before the TMCH
Philip Corwin:Let's take this discussion offline, Jon. OK?
Kathy Kleiman:Tx to all who joined us in Copehagen - and George for
joining us remotely!
George Kirikos:Bye folks.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all
Paul Tattersfield:thanks all, bye
Kathy Kleiman:Tx J. Scott!
Steve Levy:Bye all
Vinzenz Heussler:bye
Jay Chapman:thanks, all
Poncelet Ileleji:Thanks Bye
Greg Shatan:Even if private registrations use the fact of a TMCH regn as a
ready-made validation it does not give us jurisdiction over those services.
Mary Wong:Thanks everyone
Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye.
Greg Shatan:Bye all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170329/f11d092b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance RPM 29 March 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 341526 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170329/f11d092b/attendanceRPM29March2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170329/f11d092b/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list