[gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week

Mon May 1 14:25:46 UTC 2017

+1 Jonathan

Héctor Ariel Manoff
Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen
Viamonte 1145 10º Piso
C1053ABW Buenos Aires
República Argentina
Te: (54-11) 4371-6100
Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365
E-mail:  <mailto:amanoff at vmf.com.ar> amanoff at vmf.com.ar
Web:  <http://www.vmf.com.ar/> http://www.vmf.com.ar

De: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] En nombre de Jonathan Agmon
Enviado el: domingo, 30 de abril de 2017 22:41
Para: icannlists
CC: J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg
Asunto: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week

Dear Paul,

I most certainly have not. 

The USPTO classifies GIs as a subset of trademarks. Most other countries on the planet view them similarly as an indication of source of goods and they are registered in either national trademark registries or specific GI registries. 

What I stated was that GIs registered in both national trademark registry and national GI registry should enter the TMCH. No more, no less; or as some of the other colleagues on the list would put it – period. J 

The fact that you disagree that GIs can serve and do serve as trademarks is your own view and opinion, which you are mostly certainly entitled thereto. Thus, if you want to go ahead and suggest an alternative proposal to mine which recommends working on a GICH or other Claims/Sunrise processes, please go ahead. Otherwise, kindly don't artificially amend my proposal to include in it language I did not put in.

Kind regards,

Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森)

Advocate, Director

Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York)

 <mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal

 <http://www.ip-law.legal> www.ip-law.legal 

T SG +65 6532 2577  

T US +1 212 999 6180          

T IL +972 9 950 7000            

F IL +972 9 950 5500            

Soroker Agmon Nordman Pte Ltd.

133 New Bridge Road, #13-02, 059413 SINGAPORE 

8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425 4672408 Herzliya, ISRAEL 

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. 

On 1 May 2017, at 4:01, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com> wrote:

You have Jonathan.  Under current policy as implemented by the Board in the AGB, we don’t currently have a clearinghouse mechanism to hold GIs that are not also registered as trademarks nor do we have any Sunrise-like or Claims-like mechanisms to use any future GI data that may be lodged in a GICH.  The TMCH took months to develop and so would a GICH.  I see no reason to assume that GIs should automatically co-reside with trademarks in the TMCH nor any reason to assume that the parameters of any Claims or Sunrises based on GI data would be co-extensive with TM Claims and Sunrise.  If this GIs issue persists, i.e. we do anything with it other than a recommendation asking the GNSO Council to ask the Board to tell the TMCH operator to stop letting GIs in and retire the ones they have let in, we will be developing new policy (not insisting on accurate implementation of old policy) and thus starting from scratch to address it.  Any effort to develop new RPMs will add months (years?) to this process.

Best,

Paul

From: Jonathan Agmon [mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal] 
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 8:55 AM
To: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>; J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>; icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week

Paul,

Who suggested "that a separate GICH be built along with GISunrise and GIClaims"?

I didn't see such a proposal...

Perhaps you can direct us to one?

Thanks?

<image001.png>

Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森)

Advocate, Director

Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York)

 <mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal

 <http://www.ip-law.legal> www.ip-law.legal 

T SG +65 6532 2577  

T US +1 212 999 6180          

T IL +972 9 950 7000            

F IL +972 9 950 5500            

Soroker Agmon Nordman Pte Ltd.

133 New Bridge Road, #13-02, 059413 SINGAPORE 

8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425 4672408 Herzliya, ISRAEL 

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. 

From: icannlists at winston.com

Sent: 30 April 2017 20:00

To: jmalcolm at eff.org; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org

Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week

Thanks Jeremy.  I think the problem came up because the TMCH operator has let a few in under an assumption, even though no one can find any guidance in the GNSO Policy, IRT Recommendations, STI Report, Board Resolutions or the AGB supporting the notion.  If this group doesn’t affirmatively say “stop that” then presumably the TMCH operator will keep doing it and more GIs will get in.  So, unless we are happy with the status quo where the TMCH operator is letting in things no one intended to be let in, I think we have to address the issue.  

Even so, there are those on the list who want GIs to be welcome into the TMCH or that a separate GICH be built along with GISunrise and GIClaims.  While these things are not necessary off-charter, such activities could easily add a year or more to this PDP.  That is not my favorite outcome.  

Best,

Paul

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 8:22 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week

On 29/4/17 6:32 am, Jonathan Agmon wrote:

The USPTO is in the US. Perhaps the EPO's and many other Trademark Offices' positions is also relevant. My point, which I feel I am not getting through, is that the US positron is not the only one.  Nearly every country on the planet has some laws relating to GI protection and I am arguing most of them view them as a form of trademarks.  I don't see the reason why not to include a registered GI in the TMCH. They are after all trademarks, when registered. Can you help me out here to understand your objection and the reasons for it? If others (non US countries) see GIs as trademarks and allow them to be registered, why exclude them?

Forgive my ignorance, has this discussion happened elsewhere?  The proposition that GIs should be recognized alongside trademarks in the DNS is surely a far bigger one than the RPMs working group.  Not the kind of thing that we could just slip in as an assumption.  I for one would certainly have a lot more to say about the merits of recognizing GIs in the DNS, if that were our discussion.  But I doubt it's a discussion for this working group.

-- 
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

  _____  

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. 

************************************************************************************ 
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by 
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. 
************************************************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170501/c3616a97/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7844 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170501/c3616a97/image001-0001.png>