[gnso-rpm-wg] [renamed] Back to Question #7
Paul Keating
Paul at law.es
Wed May 3 12:57:03 UTC 2017
+1
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman
<kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 10:20 PM
To: <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] [renamed] Back to Question #7
>
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
>
> Let me echo your respect and appreciation for "GNSO Policy, as developed by
> the IRT and STI" and adopted by the Board as reflected in the AGB". I agree!
> J. Scott made a similar point re: the existence of the Sunrise Period and TM
> Claims itself -- all a product of the original process. These were tough
> compromises negotiated carefully and worked on in good faith by the
> participants and their stakeholder groups.
>
>
>
> To that list of original agreements, we must add the bar against acceptance of
> trademarks into the TMCH database with styling, design or logo. The STI could
> not have been more clear in what it adopted for addition to the TMCH database
> -- text marks outside of logos or designs. The GNSO Council adopted the
> language, then the ICANN Board adopted it and it was placed in the Applicant
> Guidebook. Exactly as you have outlined above. In this case, the original text
> of the adopted rules is:
>
>
> "The TC [Trademark Clearinghouse] Database should be required to include
> nationally or multinationally registered "text mark" trademarks, from all
> jurisdictions (including countries where there is no substantive review). (The
> trademarks to be included in the TC are text marks because "design marks"
> provide protection for letters and words only within the context of their
> design or logo and the STI was under a mandate not to expand existing
> trademark rights.)"
>
>
> As the TMCH was created, and the Sunrise Period and TM Claims, so too were
> these limits created to balance a system which to many (echoing Paul Keating's
> earlier thought) provided unprecedented rights of preemption to trademark
> owners. It all flows from the same page...
>
>
>
> Best, Kathy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul K
>>
>>
>>
>> It depends on your definition of the status quo, I suppose. If the status
>> quo is the GNSO Policy, as developed by the IRT and STI and adopted by the
>> Board as reflected in the AGB, meaning no mention of GIs in the TMCH, then
>> the status quo seems just fine. However, if the status quo is that GIs have
>> creeped into TMCH via the TMCH provider, than the status quo needs to be
>> challenged.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Paul M
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On
>> Behalf Of Paul Keating
>> Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 12:54 PM
>> To: Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
>> <mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
>> Cc: J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this
>> week
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Frankly I would like to know.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And I don't want to maintain the status quo absent evidence that it is worth
>> the intrusion.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Keating, Esq.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2017, at 5:21 PM, Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a good question that we can research, but given that some members of
>>> the group are less open to explore if registered GIs should be in the TMCH
>>> or not, I question if the entire exercise is not a waste of time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As I just suggested since there seems to be some disagreement (between US
>>> and other practitioners) perhaps leaving the status quo is best at this
>>> time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森) Advocate, Director Attorney and Counsellor at Law
>>> (admitted in New York) jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
>>> <mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> www.ip-law.legal
>>> <http://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: paul at law.es
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent: 30 April 2017 19:01
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To: jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cc: gregshatanipc at gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this
>>> week
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a great thread and I find Greg's explanations are very helpful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Question: are GI's registered in a "GI registry" but NOT in a trademark
>>> registry entitled to treaty protections afforded to registered trademarks?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or are they treated "somewhat" differently as, for example, NGOs are treated
>>> under 6ter?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Apr 2017, at 11:28, Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greg,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I used the word “mark”, I didn’t mean “trademark”. I was making a
>>>> distinction between a “mark” and a “trade mark” because I was trying to
>>>> state that various forms of indicators can become trademarks. Thus, the
>>>> term “mark” is not reserved to trademarks, unless it is applied in the
>>>> legal sense. If it is applied in the legal sense it is synonymous with the
>>>> word “sign”.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WIPO’s use of the word “sign” with respect to GIs should not be an
>>>> indication that WIPO specifically wished to exclude “marks” from this
>>>> definition because some other (non-US) legal systems define a trademark as
>>>> a “sign” capable of distinguishing goods (or services) of one undertaking
>>>> from those of other undertakings. See UK’s Trade Marks Act, 1994, s. 1.
>>>> Under the UK TM Act GIS are collective trademarks. It states that: “a
>>>> collective mark may be registered which consists of signs or indications
>>>> which may serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of the
>>>> goods or services.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that the rest of the discussion is not relevant to my point,
>>>> because I am advocating the we should allow GI that have been registered
>>>> into the TMCH because they are signs capable of disguising goods of one
>>>> undertaking from those of other undertakings.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assuming we agree to have GIs that are registered in a national trademark
>>>> registry into the TMCH, why do you object to having the same signs that are
>>>> registered in a national GI registry into the TMCH?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森) Advocate, Director Attorney and Counsellor at Law
>>>> (admitted in New York) jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
>>>> <mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> www.ip-law.legal
>>>> <http://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: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 8:11 AM
>>>> To: Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
>>>> Cc: J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com>; Massimo <Massimo at origin-gi.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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Responses in-line:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Jonathan Agmon
>>>> <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You state: Claiming that GIs are trademarks (or even "marks") is not
>>>>> something I can support.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, GIs are simply word marks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, GIs are not "word marks." That is the point you are trying to prove.
>>>> Stating it to prove the point is circular. They may be words (or designs,
>>>> or combinations of words and designs). If by word "mark," you mean a
>>>> trademark, then that is not true. If you don't mean a trademark, then what
>>>> definition of "mark" are you using? I note that WIPO, in defining GIs,
>>>> uses "sign" and not "mark". GIs may be words, and they may signify
>>>> something, but they are not trademarks, unless and until they are
>>>> registered as trademarks. Using the word "mark" to refer to both
>>>> "trademarks" and "not trademarks" essentially strips it of meaning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PARMA is a word mark, is it not?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not. PARMA is a word. It is not per se a word mark. Whether it's
>>>> a "word mark" depends on whether it is registered as a trademark (putting
>>>> aside "common law" marks, since they are generally not accepted into the
>>>> TMCH unless they are "court-validated"). If it is used in a way that
>>>> qualifies as a trademark under the trademark laws of a particular
>>>> jurisdiction as a trademark of some sort, and it is registered as a
>>>> trademark, then it is a trademark (or a "word mark" if you wish). If it is
>>>> a GI and it is registered as such, or if it is not registered at all, it is
>>>> not a trademark.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And PARMA can (and was) registered as trademarks in the US.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but that hardly proves your point. Quite the opposite. There are
>>>> currently seven registrations for PARMA (without any other words) on the US
>>>> trademark register. With one exception, these trademarks are clearly not
>>>> functioning in any way akin to a GI.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Five are "standard form" registrations (text without any type of
>>>> formatting) for PARMA, owned by five different registrants for the
>>>> following goods and services:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Hard wood flooring; Engineered wood flooring; Laminate flooring;
>>>> Luxury vinyl tile.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Restaurant and bar services, namely, fine dining restaurant
>>>> services.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. Faucets, shower heads and faucet sets. Towel rings,
>>>> clothes-drying racks; bath accessories, namely, cup holders, toothbrush
>>>> holders and soap dishes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4. Computer software for use in displaying and printing digital
>>>> typeface designs and typographic ornaments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 5. Fluid pumps-namely, irrigation and drainage pumps, sewerage and sump
>>>> pumps, tractor-drawn farm implements-namely, corrugators, crop toppers, and
>>>> beet cleaners.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One is a registration for "PARMA!" (with an exclamation point) for
>>>> "Flavourings and seasonings; Food seasonings; Seasonings."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One is a registration for PARMA Plus Design (consisting of the word
>>>> "PARMA" inside a stylized crown) for "Ham Products." This registration is
>>>> owned by CONSORZIO DEL PROSCIUTTO DI PARMA ASSOCIATION ITALY Largo
>>>> Calamandrei 1/A Parma (PR) ITALY, as a Certification Mark, with the
>>>> statement: "The certification mark, as used by persons authorized by the
>>>> certifier, certifies the regional origin of the products and certifies that
>>>> those products conform to the production process, size, shape, weight,
>>>> curing, slicing and packaging requirements promulgated by the certifier."
>>>> I assume this is the registration you are referring to (particularly since
>>>> there is no "standard form" registration for PARMA owned by the CONSORZIO
>>>> DEL PROSCIUTTO DI PARMA).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The CONSORZIO DEL PROSCIUTTO DI PARMA also owns two other Certification
>>>> Mark registrations containing the word PARMA: One for PARMA HAM ("Ham"
>>>> disclaimed) and one for PROSCIUTTO DI PARMA ("Prosciutto" disclaimed).
>>>> Both of these are standard form registrations. (
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Notably, there is a registration for PARMA BRAND Plus Design (consisting
>>>> of the words PARMA BRAND in a circle with a flying eagle clutching a
>>>> sausage in its talons) ("Brand" disclaimed) for MEAT PRODUCTS-NAMELY,
>>>> SAUSAGE, SALAMI, CAPICOLLO, LUNCH MEATS, owned by Parma Sausage Products,
>>>> Inc. of Pittsburgh, PA. This registration predates all of the
>>>> registrations owned by the Consorzio.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, all three of the Consorzio's applications were refused
>>>> registration by the USPTO based on the PARMA BRAND Plus Design registration
>>>> (which at that time included "Prosciutto" among its goods and services).
>>>> (For all those talking about "scope of protection" of text + design marks,
>>>> this is a great example to consider -- the two text-only marks and the
>>>> PARMA (and Crown) mark were refused registration by PARMA Brand plus a
>>>> sausage-toting eagle. Clearly the scope of the PARMA Brand registration
>>>> extended beyond the context of its design.) The Consorzio del Prosciutto
>>>> di Parma and Parma Sausage Products entered into a settlement agreement,
>>>> whereby Parma Sausage agreed to remove "prosciutto" from its goods and
>>>> services, which allowed the Consorzio applications to proceed to
>>>> registration on the trademark register.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then, and only then, did the PARMA (and Crown), PARMA HAM and PROSCIUTTO
>>>> DI PARMA "signs" become trademarks (assuming they were not registered as
>>>> trademarks elsewhere first). These registrations could be relied on to
>>>> register PARMA, PARMA HAM and PROSCIUTTO DI PARMA in the TMCH (noting there
>>>> is still some disagreement in the WG whether the crown in the PARMA
>>>> registration somehow disqualifies it from serving as the basis for entry of
>>>> PARMA into the TMCH).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, each of the first six registrations above could also form the
>>>> basis for entering PARMA into the TMCH (the sixth by excluding the "!").
>>>> None of these are GIs, of course. And the PARMA BRAND registration could
>>>> form the basis for entering PARMA BRAND into the TMCH (again noting the
>>>> disagreement on how such text plus design marks should be handled). This
>>>> too, is not a GI, even if it used for meat products (but not prosciutto)
>>>> made in the great city of Pittsburgh, PA. https://www.parmasausage.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you explain, what you meant?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hope that helps. I've attached a document with some of the info referred
>>>> to here....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are most welcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <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 <http://www.ip-law.legal>
>>>>> T SG +65 6532 2577 <tel:+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: Saturday, April 29, 2017 5:37 PM
>>>>> To: Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
>>>>> Cc: J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com>; Massimo <Massimo at origin-gi.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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1000 to J Scott on this point:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A common misconception. The TMCH is a database. Nothing more. It is a
>>>>> database used to facilitate two RPM's: Sunrise and TM Claims.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Flowing from that, the population of the TMCH database needs to serve RPMs
>>>>> -- Trademark Sunrise and/or Trademark Claims. GIs are not consistently
>>>>> treated as trademarks, and where they are, it is often because they
>>>>> separately and independently meet the criteria set for trademarks such as
>>>>> certification marks. Claiming that GIs are trademarks (or even "marks")
>>>>> is not something I can support, based on 30.5 years of practice (as long
>>>>> as we are counting rings on trees, so to speak). Why would GIs go into a
>>>>> trademark database? Mixing GIs and trademarks as if they were
>>>>> indistinguishable makes no sense. Further, it makes no sense to even
>>>>> discuss any changes to the TMCH, or the establishment of additional
>>>>> databases, until we discuss changes or additions to the RPMs such as
>>>>> Trademark Sunrise and Trademark Claims. A record in the TMCH without a
>>>>> corresponding RPM cannot be seriously contemplated. Until one identifies
>>>>> an RPM for GIs, there is no reason to establish a Clearinghouse for GIs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not there should be an RPM for GIs is a valid point for
>>>>> discussion. This is not the right time for that discussion. Jamming GIs
>>>>> into the TMCH on the theory that GIs are trademarks is not the right way
>>>>> to avoid that discussion. That some GIs are sometimes trademarks in some
>>>>> jurisdictions and sometimes also qualify as trademarks in other
>>>>> jurisdictions is not a valid basis for treating all GIs as trademarks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [As always, in my personal capacity, unless otherwise noted.]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg Shatan
>>>>> C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>>>>> S: gsshatan
>>>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Jonathan Agmon
>>>>> <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <image001.png> Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森) Advocate, Director Attorney and
>>>>>> Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York) jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
>>>>>> <mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> www.ip-law.legal
>>>>>> <http://www.ip-law.legal>
>>>>>> T SG +65 6532 2577 <tel:+65%206532%202577> T US +1 212 999 6180
>>>>>> <tel:%28212%29%20999-6180> T IL +972 9 950 7000
>>>>>> <tel:+972%209-950-7000> F IL +972 9 950 5500
>>>>>> <tel:+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: Massimo at origin-gi.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent: 29 April 2017 22:48
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To: jsevans at adobe.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
>>>>>> this week
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The EU, as all the other countries having GIs independent system,
>>>>>> provides transparent registration systems, with opposition procedures. So
>>>>>> registration is needed in the EU too. Two different views (independent /
>>>>>> sui generis systems or trademark), both legitimate at the international
>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best, Massimo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: J. Scott Evans <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>
>>>>>> Sent: 29.04.2017 16:02
>>>>>> To: Massimo <mailto:Massimo at origin-gi.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Jonathan Agmon <mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> ;
>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
>>>>>> this week
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I stand by my original point. They GI's are not protected consistently.
>>>>>> In the US, Parma is not protected without a US trademark registration.
>>>>>> Not so in Europe. Two different views on the scope of rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2017, at 6:58 AM, Massimo <Massimo at origin-gi.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The disagreement concerns whether to protect GIs via an independent
>>>>>>> system or via trademarks, but not the GI concept itself. But for the
>>>>>>> time being countries can choose their system, and their choice is
>>>>>>> legitimate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An example: prosciutto di Parma is a GI in the EU. As the product is
>>>>>>> exported in the US, the association of producers owns now a
>>>>>>> certification mark there for exactly the same name. So Prosciutto di
>>>>>>> Parma can be for sure in the TMCH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if that product was exported only within Europe or the Asian
>>>>>>> countries I mentioned in an earlier email having independent GI systems
>>>>>>> (so no certification mark on the same name was available), do not you
>>>>>>> think that being excluded from the TMCH (as well as from dispute
>>>>>>> resolution) would have been discriminatory?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, I think we should spend more time on those issues rather than
>>>>>>> rushing to a conclusion which might not reflect the existing situation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best, Massimo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: J. Scott Evans <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>
>>>>>>> Sent: 29.04.2017 15:18
>>>>>>> To: Massimo <mailto:Massimo at origin-gi.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: Jonathan Agmon <mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> ;
>>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
>>>>>>> this week
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I spoke directly with representatives from the USPTO and I also
>>>>>>> understand USPTO representatives attended the meeting at n Copenhagen.
>>>>>>> Based on my discussions with the USPTO, I disagree that there is
>>>>>>> universal treatment of GI's that are not registered as trademarks. In
>>>>>>> fact, I know that the scope of protection for GI's has been a thorny
>>>>>>> issue in international trade negotiations since at least the 1930's. It
>>>>>>> has s not a settled point by any means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2017, at 6:08 AM, Massimo <Massimo at origin-gi.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi, I was trying to show that luck of understanding about GIs does not
>>>>>>> exist any more as the large majority of countries have specific laws
>>>>>>> with transparent registration processes. There is not divergence at all
>>>>>>> in terms of definition of the GI concept and obligation to protect that
>>>>>>> IPR concept (TRIPs Agreement). The WG should make proposals that reflect
>>>>>>> the current legal and economic reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best, Massimo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: 29.04.2017 14:46
>>>>>>> To: Jonathan Agmon <mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
>>>>>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
>>>>>>> this week
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disagree. I was on the IRT. GI's were never discussed. It is precisely
>>>>>>> because there is no universal understanding or treatment of GI's that
>>>>>>> only those GI's that are"marks" aka "trademarks" should be allowed in
>>>>>>> the TMCH. Paul Mc's proposal is the correct Avenue to address this over
>>>>>>> inclusiveness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 28, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Jonathan Agmon
>>>>>>> <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not sure about the broad alignment, especially not outside the US.
>>>>>>> There are differing opinions on the issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still disagree with you basic understanding of GIs. GIs are marks as
>>>>>>> they are comprised of text words. GIs are trademarks when they denote
>>>>>>> the source of goods. They can be registered in national trademark
>>>>>>> registries. The only difference between the US and other countries is
>>>>>>> where they are registered. This is not a basis for exclusion from the
>>>>>>> TMCH. In most countries of the world GI registration is performed in
>>>>>>> the trademark registry (GI section) or in a specialized GI registry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the TMCH is a very important protection rights protection
>>>>>>> mechanism, available to brand owners, and in most countries of the
>>>>>>> world, the general view is that GIs are a type of trademarks, I make the
>>>>>>> following alternative proposal:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “GIs comprise of word marks. When registered, GIs serve as collective
>>>>>>> trademarks. If a GI is the subject of a national trademark registration,
>>>>>>> or a national GI registration, it could have been, in the past, and may
>>>>>>> be included, in the future in, the TMCH. For any GIs that are not the
>>>>>>> subject of a national trademark or GI registration, or otherwise
>>>>>>> qualified for registration under the Trademark Clearinghouse Guidelines,
>>>>>>> at the time of registration, which are currently registered in the TMCH,
>>>>>>> such GIs should not be renewed in the TMCH upon expiration.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally, please note that my time zone is UTC+8.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <SANLogSmallNew_485a3de7-c8c5-4ec6-b34d-6de68607f295.png> Jonathan
>>>>>>> Agmon (胡韩森) Advocate, Director Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted
>>>>>>> in New York) jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
>>>>>>> <mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> www.ip-law.legal
>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ip-
>>>>>>> law.legal&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7347c4562ec2456efb8208d48eb0f556%7Cfa7b1b5a7
>>>>>>> b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636290338068704072&sdata=vZtzroklJn8U8
>>>>>>> PtzSsFvxXra%2FUpVHdIy862yVH2W53U%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>>> T SG +65 6532 2577 <tel:+65%206532%202577> T US +1 212 999 6180
>>>>>>> <tel:%28212%29%20999-6180> T IL +972 9 950 7000
>>>>>>> <tel:+972%209-950-7000> F IL +972 9 950 5500
>>>>>>> <tel:+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: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>>>>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of icannlists
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:35 PM
>>>>>>> To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>; Mary Wong
>>>>>>> <mary.wong at icann.org>; 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Claudio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You aren’t missing anything. The fact that the co-chairs didn’t dismiss
>>>>>>> outright the request of a few to dig a bit deeper before moving on isn’t
>>>>>>> unusual. It is very ICANN. However, that doesn’t change the reality
>>>>>>> that there appears to be broad alignment across all sorts of the usual
>>>>>>> lines that GIs, unless they are also registered trademarks, should not
>>>>>>> be included in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Further, as of now, there
>>>>>>> is no proposal in the record to the contrary, although I do note that
>>>>>>> Jonathan A. indicated that he may submit one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hope you are well. It is good to see you actively participating in an
>>>>>>> ICANN WG again! Welcome back.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: claudio di gangi [mailto:ipcdigangi at gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:ipcdigangi at gmail.com> ]
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 1:49 PM
>>>>>>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >;
>>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> ; icannlists
>>>>>>> <icannlists at winston.com <mailto:icannlists at winston.com> >
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
>>>>>>> this week
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, Paul.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I listened to that part of the call again, and after the presentation of
>>>>>>> the proposal, Phil took comments from George, Greg, and Jonathan (all
>>>>>>> provided input/ideas about ways GIs could be protected) and there was a
>>>>>>> request for staff to obtain more background on the 'marks protected by
>>>>>>> statute or treaty' language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There didn't seem to be a conclusion, hence my earlier email about next
>>>>>>> steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let me know if I missing something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Claudio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:09 PM icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Claudio. However, after the last WG call I thought we had
>>>>>>> reached the opposite conclusion that there was little or no interest in
>>>>>>> taking up the GIs issue at this time. Jonathan A. thought he might put
>>>>>>> forward a third proposal on GIs, but I haven’t seen that yet on this (or
>>>>>>> at least I don’t think I have).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto: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 claudio di gangi
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:58 PM
>>>>>>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >;
>>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
>>>>>>> this week
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary, all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just recently joined the WG, so I'm reading the listserve to get
>>>>>>> caught up to speed. It's been very helpful and informative to review all
>>>>>>> the contributions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An initial question: is a work plan being established for addressing
>>>>>>> issues that were discussed on Wednesday's call?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, on Paul and Kathy's proposal related to GIs - I think the
>>>>>>> group has identified a good issue worthy of further analysis, e.g.
>>>>>>> should GIs be protected against registration abuse, as a consumer
>>>>>>> safeguard in new gTLDs?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that approach is supported by the analysis, they could be registered
>>>>>>> in the limited registration period that is currently described in the
>>>>>>> Applicant Guidebook, that takes place following the Sunrise period,
>>>>>>> supported by the Clearinghouse or an ancillary database.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the basis that further analysis of this topic would be helpful to
>>>>>>> inform WG deliberations, where should it take place - on the Sunrise
>>>>>>> subteam or somewhere else?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm looking forward to working with everyone on the team.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Claudio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:42 PM Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The proposed agenda for our call this Thursday at 0300 UTC (reminder:
>>>>>>> Wednesday evening/night for those in the Americas) is as follows; please
>>>>>>> also see the Notes that are included below:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates
>>>>>>> to Statements of Interest
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Report on progress and status updates from the co-chairs of
>>>>>>> the Sunrise and Claims Notice Sub Teams (Lori Schulman, Kristine Dorrain
>>>>>>> & Michael Graham) – 5 minutes for each Sub Team update
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Discuss consolidated table of proposals received on TMCH Open
>>>>>>> Questions 7, 8 and 10 (see Notes below)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. Notice of deadline for further follow up questions to the
>>>>>>> Analysis Group
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5. Next steps/next meeting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Notes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> o For Agenda Item #2, the composition, meeting transcripts and
>>>>>>> current work status of each of the two Sub Teams can be viewed at their
>>>>>>> respective wiki pages: https://community.icann.org/x/msrRAw
>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun
>>>>>>> ity.icann.org%2Fx%2FmsrRAw&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7347c4562ec2456efb8208d48eb
>>>>>>> 0f556%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636290338068704072&sd
>>>>>>> ata=LV2xP0GxXnJT%2Fysb%2BD07uiVkoTLxZsxFmJtHHuZWZt0%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>>> (Sunrise) and https://community.icann.org/x/psrRAw
>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun
>>>>>>> ity.icann.org%2Fx%2FpsrRAw&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7347c4562ec2456efb8208d48eb
>>>>>>> 0f556%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636290338068704072&sd
>>>>>>> ata=ih36xR7dPVctsC1ywARSru6xVfE4VWIY9owrvj%2Fkxww%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>>> (Claims).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> o For Agenda Item #3, please review the first attached document. This
>>>>>>> is the tabular form of all proposals received to date on the three open
>>>>>>> TMCH questions (Questions 7, 8 and 10) as of the 19 April deadline.
>>>>>>> Staff has not edited the language of the proposals received, although we
>>>>>>> have formatted them to some extent to enable easier reading, and we have
>>>>>>> also separated out accompanying rationale and context (where this was
>>>>>>> provided) and pasted these into a second table (starting on Page 7).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For your reference, we are also attaching a second document, which is a
>>>>>>> compilation of other proposals received so far. Please note that these
>>>>>>> proposals are being circulated for your information only, and will not
>>>>>>> be discussed at this time as they concern topics that have either been
>>>>>>> deferred or that have to do with Sunrise and/or Claims. The co-chairs
>>>>>>> may refer these to the Sub Teams, but only for the specific purpose of
>>>>>>> seeing if the subjects have been covered by existing Charter questions,
>>>>>>> or if they can be helpful in refining the existing Charter questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally, the co-chairs and staff are aware that Working Group members
>>>>>>> have requested that agendas and documents be circulated as much in
>>>>>>> advance of the minimum 24-hour deadline as possible. We were not able to
>>>>>>> comply with that request this week due to a personal situation for one
>>>>>>> of the co-chairs; however, going forward, the co-chairs plan to meet
>>>>>>> with staff every Friday to ensure that agendas and, if possible,
>>>>>>> documents, are available and distributed earlier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ica
>>>>>>> nn.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7347c4562ec2
>>>>>>> 456efb8208d48eb0f556%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636290
>>>>>>> 338068704072&sdata=vQCm1Znpclv%2FRd0qGa%2FHLKqfo0Xse3zg%2BesoNmxv%2Fhg%3
>>>>>>> D&reserved=0>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ican
>>>>>>> n.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7347c4562ec24
>>>>>>> 56efb8208d48eb0f556%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6362903
>>>>>>> 38068704072&sdata=vQCm1Znpclv%2FRd0qGa%2FHLKqfo0Xse3zg%2BesoNmxv%2Fhg%3D
>>>>>>> &reserved=0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> *************************************************************************
>>>>>> ***********
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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.orghttps://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/20170503/dbe06c30/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name:
Type: image/png
Size: 7844 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170503/dbe06c30/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list