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

Tue May 2 04:53:19 UTC 2017

Jonathan,

I expect we might disagree on the last sentence, which is "No."  As for the
day job, I believe you are not alone in that regard.

In any event, i don't think the issue whether you disagree with my
conclusion or my analysis (which is in other emails, which I respectfully
believe have already "centralized" the discussion. I assume you have read
those as well).  Rather, I think the issue is whether the Working Group
needs to continue this discussion in order to come to broad agreement on
the issue.

I'll leave it to the Co-Chairs to decide when and whether to bring the
discussion to a close.  However, I would observe that any position that
finds me, Paul McGrady, Brian Winterfeldt, Paul Keating and Jeremy Malcolm
in agreement can fairly be characterized as "broad agreement."

Best regards,

Greg

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

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
> wrote:

> Greg, we are in disagreement on the last sentence, but I have a day job so
> I will respond later today to your previous post to try and centralize the
> discussion.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森)
>
> Advocate, Director
>
> Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York)
>
> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
>
> www.ip-law.legal
>
> *T* SG +65 6532 2577 <+65%206532%202577>
>
> *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:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 1, 2017 7:18 PM
> *To:* Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
> *Cc:* icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>; J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg
> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
>
>
>
> I think this makes our job simpler -- in this WG at least.
>
>
>
> Jonathan has clarified that the idea of a GICH, GI Sunrise or GI Claims is
> not before us in this Working Group.
>
>
>
> The question then is simply whether GIs as such (and not only when they
> are protected under trademark law as trademarks) should be included in
> Trademark Sunrise, Trademark Claims and (as the tool behind these RPMs) the
> Trademark Clearinghouse.
>
>
>
> Since it's clear that GIs are not in fact (either under US law or
> generally), a "subset" of trademarks, I think the answer to the question is
> simple.
>
>
>
> No.
>
>
>
> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
> S: gsshatan
> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428>
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Jonathan Agmon <
> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> wrote:
>
> 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,
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.png at 01D2C2F2.DA9863E0]
>
> Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森)
>
> Advocate, Director
>
> Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York)
>
> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
>
> www.ip-law.legal
>
> *T* SG +65 6532 2577 <+65%206532%202577>
>
> *T* US +1 212 999 6180 <(212)%20999-6180>
>
> *T* IL +972 9 950 7000 <+972%209-950-7000>
>
> *F *IL +972 9 950 5500 <+972%209-950-5500>
>
> 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
> <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)
>
> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
>
> www.ip-law.legal
>
> *T* SG +65 6532 2577 <+65%206532%202577>
>
> *T* US +1 212 999 6180 <(212)%20999-6180>
>
> *T* IL +972 9 950 7000 <+972%209-950-7000>
>
> *F *IL +972 9 950 5500 <+972%209-950-5500>
>
> 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@
> icann.org <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 <(415)%20436-9333>
>
>
>
> :: 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.
> ************************************************************
> ************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************************
>
> 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/20170502/bd44efb0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SANLogSmallNew_485a3de7-c8c5-4ec6-b34d-6de68607f295.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7844 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170502/bd44efb0/SANLogSmallNew_485a3de7-c8c5-4ec6-b34d-6de68607f295-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 48986 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170502/bd44efb0/image001-0001.png>