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

Thu May 4 21:10:33 UTC 2017

OK, I'll put something together next week.

thanks!

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 5:05 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com> wrote:

> You all should make a formal proposal to the Co-Chairs if that is indeed
> what you want to propose.
>
>
>
> [image:
> ttps://inside.corp.adobe.com/content/dam/brandcenter/images/image002.gif]
>
> *J. Scott Evans*
>
> 408.536.5336 <(408)%20536-5336> (tel)
>
> 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
>
> Director, Associate General Counsel
>
> 408.709.6162 <(408)%20709-6162> (cell)
>
> San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
>
> Adobe. Make It an Experience.
>
> jsevans at adobe.com
>
> www.adobe.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:00 PM
> *To: *"J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com>
> *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
>
>
>
> J. Scott,
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
> I completely agree with you about the existing proposals on that are the
> table.
>
>
>
> Since concerns have been identified by Massimo, I see value in also having
> a small group consider the topic a little bit more broadly than a pure
> compliance review.
>
>
>
> In order to do that, we can have a small team do a little bit of deep dive
> and report back to the full group with preliminary analysis and see how it
> comes out, before closing the door (so to speak).
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:30 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com> wrote:
>
> Claudio:
>
>
>
> Thanks for distilling the discussions into an easy to follow email. That
> said, I will maintain the position that GIs should only be in the TMCH if
> they are also registered trademarks. I believe that is what was intended
> when the TMCH was created. I think Deloitte had misinterpreted the
> directive “marks protected by statute or treaty.” This needs to be
> rectified and Paul Mc’s proposal does that exactly. As for whether GIs
> deserve the same protections as trademarks in the DNS – that is a
> discussion for another group.
>
>
>
> I think we clearly have two camps here. I think Jonathan has a proposal on
> the one hand and Paul Mc has a proposal on the other hand. Jonathan should
> be allowed to present his proposal and then the WG needs to find consensus
> behind one of the two proposals or a modification thereof. We cannot have
> endless discussion just because a small contingent is unwilling to agree on
> a point. That is what minority reports are for. My suggestion is to hear
> Jonathon out and then ask the Chairs to make a call for consensus.
>
>
>
> J. Scott
>
>
>
> [image:
> tps://inside.corp.adobe.com/content/dam/brandcenter/images/image002.gif]
>
> *J. Scott Evans*
>
> 408.536.5336 <(408)%20536-5336> (tel)
>
> 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
>
> Director, Associate General Counsel
>
> 408.709.6162 <(408)%20709-6162> (cell)
>
> San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
>
> Adobe. Make It an Experience.
>
> jsevans at adobe.com
>
> www.adobe.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of claudio di gangi <
> ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 1:22 PM
> *To: *icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>
> *Cc: *"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'm very pleased to see continued discussion on this topic.
>
>
>
> I've reviewed the contributions received so far, and honestly believe its
> premature to slam the door shut, or alternatively to kick the can down the
> road to another committee or to the "private protections" solution.
>
>
>
> This WG was formed by the Council to consider whether the RPMs
> "...collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or
> whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to clarify
> and unify the policy goals. If such additional policy recommendations are
> needed, the Working Group is expected to develop recommendations to address
> the specific issues identified." (WG Charter)
>
>
>
> Our discussions so far has identified the issue of the protection of GIs
> in new gTLDs, and I believe this raises the following questions that are
> worthy of further consideration.
>
>
>
> I have provided some preliminary thoughts below for consideration &
> feedback.
>
>
>
> 1. Were GIs considered when the IP Clearinghouse was first proposed and
> later developed for implementation?
>
>
>
> a. Yes, the IRT proposed an "IP Clearinghouse" that would include a
> "panoply" of IP rights beyond trademarks. It did not propose a Trademark
> Clearinghouse, which would have been a much more straightforward proposal.
>
>
>
> 1. the IRT had about 8 weeks to complete its work, so I agree with
> previous comments that almost no time was spent discussing GIs (or other
> forms of IP such as book titles) other than to say yes, they should be
> included in the database. At that time, it was hard enough to get consensus
> on the trademark protections even though there was already a
> long-established precedent for protecting trademarks in the DNS.
>
>
>
> b. The STI, which also had a very short time period to conclude its work,
> modified the IRT proposal in several respects, including by revising the IP
> Clearinghouse proposal to a "Trademark Clearinghouse" database.
>
>
>
> 1. The IPC, and member IP organizations and companies, provided public
> comment on the revised Clearinghouse proposal, and those comments reflected
> preference for the IRT model, and specifically stated the Clearinghouse
> should cover a broad range of IP rights beyond trademarks. (see IPC and
> other public comments on the revised Clearinghouse proposal).
>
>
>
> So there is no doubt this issue came up during the implementation phase,
> and there were varying views in the community about how it should be
> addressed. This furthers the notion that this topic appropriately falls
> under our charter.
>
>
>
> 2. Are GIs an important form of IP that should be protected generally?
>
>
>
> a. Within the IP community, yes there is general consensus that GIs should
> be protected consistent with national and international laws. For example,
> see this INTA Board Resolution on GIs, which states GIs are an important
> form of IP and should be protected (along with copyright, patents, etc.)
>
>
>
> http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Pages/ProtectionofGeographicalIndica
> tionsandTrademarks.aspx
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inta.org%2FAdvocacy%2FPages%2FProtectionofGeographicalIndicationsandTrademarks.aspx&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca3728ea4effe4aabc5a008d4932b4160%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636295261371010790&sdata=pd%2FZy4%2F%2F7%2FUpRSGmJS4e5z8R8ZsZLijsRwyGowkZQ%2Fs%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> 1. A lot of energy has centered on the debate about how to protect GIs so
> as to not unfairly disadvantage other rights holders. The INTA Resolution
> above relies upon a "first in time, first in right" approach for resolving
> conflicts between GIs and trademarks. The Resolution states that in some
> cases, GIs will have priority over later registered trademarks, and vice
> versa.
>
>
>
> A. This issue would need to be fully considered in developing potential
> protections for GIs; for example, GIs could be protected following the
> Sunrise period, during the "limited registration period" that takes place
> before general availability, to avoid conflicts with trademarks that are
> globally protected. Another approach could be to provide a Claims service
> for GIs.
>
>
>
> 3. Is the protection of GIs inconsistent with the GNSO recommendation that
> strings should not infringe the rights of others that are reflected in
> international standards?
>
>
>
> a. There is nothing inconsistent on the surface, but the topic should be
> supported by further legal analysis in order to come to any hard
> conclusions.
>
>
>
> 4. Are GIs currently protected in new gTLDs and the DNS?
>
>
>
> a. Yes, GIs have been protected in some TLDs during the limited
> registration period mentioned above, and also through "private protections"
> in some strings. They have also been protected in a Sunrise period (.ASIA)
> that pre-dates the new gTLD program.
>
>
>
> 5. Should GIs be included in the Clearinghouse database, or an ancillary
> database maintained by Deloitte, to streamline administration burdens on
> rights holders?
>
>
>
> a. There has been consensus on several committees that the Clearinghouse
> is not a RPM, but an administrative support tool designed to reduce costs
> imposed by the new gTLD program. Depending on how the analysis to # 3 above
> comes out and related questions, the reduction of administrative costs is a
> worthy goal for the new gTLD program.
>
>
>
> 1. Consideration should be given on whether to maintain GIs separately
> from TMs in an ancillary database for administrative purposes.
>
>
>
> The proposals that have been submitted so far on the existing
> Clearinghouse are retrospective in nature. With that said, I find them very
> helpful to informs our views. As Phil expressed on our most recent call, we
> are not bound the current rules in the Applicant Guidebook. If we were,
> this WG would be nothing more than a compliance review team. The issue that
> squarely falls before this committee is to review the RPMs holistically,
> identify issues, and try to come up with consensus solutions to address
> them, if appropriate.
>
>
>
> A concern recently raised by Paul relates to timing. While I don't think
> we should be hampered by artificial deadlines, the analysis that is needed
> to consider this topic can be done in parallel with the other sub-teams,
> and there is a pre-existing body of work we can build from, including
> mechanisms that are already in the Applicant Guidebook.
>
>
>
> As I described in a previous note, a stitch in time saves nine. After
> identifying the issue, I think it would be better to spend some more time
> on it now, so it doesn't keep bubbling up over the next several years. In
> other words, I think whatever work we do now will reflect substantial
> progress in many respects, and save time for the community in the end.
>
>
>
> If there is any doubt on which way to proceed, I would argue we should
> default to the more open approach, and foster discussion. As the saying
> goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 8:53 AM, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com> wrote:
>
> +1 Paul K
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 4, 2017, at 6:42 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <
> ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> From: Paul Keating
> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 7:16 AM
> To: Massimo Vittori
> Cc: J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
>
>
>   Nope.  I think it's all been said and do not see any reason to further
> expand things.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 4 May 2017, at 12:39, Massimo Vittori <Massimo at origin-gi.com<mailto:
> Massimo at origin-gi.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear all, any follow-up on the proposals to establish a sub-team to
> discuss RPM for GIs and/or to discuss it thoroughly in the WG?
>
> Best, Massimo
> ________________________________
> From: Massimo Vittori<mailto:Massimo at origin-gi.com>
> Sent: ‎03.‎05.‎2017 08:07
> To: claudio di gangi<mailto:ipcdigangi at gmail.com>; Greg Shatan<mailto:
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Cc: J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
>
> +1
>
> Best, Massimo
> ________________________________
> From: claudio di gangi<mailto:ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> Sent: ‎02.‎05.‎2017 20:41
> To: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Cc: J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call
> this week
>
> I think this working group is doing a great job in identifying topics
> worthy of further analysis, which appropriately fall under our charter, and
> should be commended.
>
> Just to take a quick moment to step back and look at the big picture:
>
> the original GNSO policy recommendations, approved by the Board and
> directed to staff for implementation, including the following
> recommendation:
>
> "Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are
> recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally
> recognized principles of law."
>
> In my view, this was adopted by the diverse stakeholders in the GNSO
> because the balanced protection of IP within ICANN contracts and policies
> is a consumer safeguard mechanism for the DNS. With that said, there were
> some varying views about how this broad IP-related recommendation was to be
> specifically implemented, which was only one of several issues that caused
> delays to the new gTLD program. This is why the IRT and STI were formed
> under such short time-periods to complete their work. And why, despite the
> best efforts of both ad-hoc committees, their recommendations were
> modified, either directly or indirectly through the public comment process.
>
> In fact, the rules associated with the RPMs changed throughout the entire
> multi-year implementation process. The Final Requirements RPMs document was
> not posted by staff until after all the applications were published, and
> even the rules in this document and those in the Final AGB were modified
> following their adoption.
>
> More specifically related to GIs, several strings delayed delegation while
> private protections were developed.
>
> With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I think the old adage hold true: 'a
> stitch in time saves nine'
>
> ...so I think this is where we currently are in this WG.
>
> As Greg recently noted, whether or not there should be an RPM for GIs is a
> valid point for discussion. I propose to form a sub-team to have this
> discussion so we can hear everyone's views (Kathy, Jeremy, Paul K., and
> others have expressed input) and we can try to move the ball forward. This
> will help us in achieving our objective of considering the effectiveness of
> all the RPMs, and proposing changes which reflect incremental improvements
> consistent with ICANN's mission.
>
> Best regards,
> Claudio
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<
> mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> +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:(917)%20816-6428>
> S: gsshatan
> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428<tel:(646)%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<mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>> wrote:
> +1
>
>
>
>
> <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<http://www.ip-law.legal
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ip-law.legal&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca3728ea4effe4aabc5a008d4932b4160%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636295261371010790&sdata=YVB949q1S1aTPzo2%2BQKa7vEGqTM60QAaQEFfSU0qigg%3D&reserved=0>
> >
>
>
> 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: Massimo at origin-gi.com<mailto:Massimo at origin-gi.com>
> Sent: 29 April 2017 22:48
> To: jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>
> Cc: jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal<mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>;
> 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
>
>
> 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<mailto: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<mailto:
> 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<mailto: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<mailto:
> 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<mailto: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<
> mailto: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%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636290338068704072&sdata=vZtzroklJn8U8PtzSsFvxXra%
> 2FUpVHdIy862yVH2W53U%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> T SG +65 6532 2577<tel:+65%206532%202577>
>
> T US +1 212 999 6180<tel:(212)%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>
> [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<mailto:ipcdigangi at gmail.com>>;
> 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 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]
> 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<mailto:
> 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<mailto:ma
> ry.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%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FmsrRAw&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca3728ea4effe4aabc5a008d4932b4160%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636295261371010790&sdata=VL7VoTys8R7WvWHpLV12F9yYINDzv57rm3PKZVrQO%2Bc%3D&reserved=0>
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FmsrRAw&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7C7347c4562ec2456efb8208d48eb0f556%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636290338068704072&sdata=LV2xP0GxXnJT%2Fysb%
> 2BD07uiVkoTLxZsxFmJtHHuZWZt0%3D&reserved=0> (Sunrise) and
> https://community.icann.org/x/psrRAw
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FpsrRAw&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca3728ea4effe4aabc5a008d4932b4160%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636295261371010790&sdata=qhfhNWFV%2FUQJuoBMwgDkVWSlyCoykquFIx%2BWLyT%2B8SI%3D&reserved=0>
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FpsrRAw&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7C7347c4562ec2456efb8208d48eb0f556%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636290338068704072&sdata=ih36xR7dPVctsC1ywARSru6xVfE4VW
> IY9owrvj%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<mailto: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.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca3728ea4effe4aabc5a008d4932b4160%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636295261371010790&sdata=O7ngQR%2FVtbIef1%2FXIxbLhxnmxPp3A%2Bd9rTM6TUW8xHs%3D&reserved=0>
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%
> 2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7C7347c4562ec2456efb8208d48eb0f556%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636290338068704072&sdata=vQCm1Znpclv%2FRd0qGa%
> 2FHLKqfo0Xse3zg%2BesoNmxv%2Fhg%3D&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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-
> rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C7347c4562ec2456efb8208d48eb0f556%
> 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636290338068704072&sdata=
> vQCm1Znpclv%2FRd0qGa%2FHLKqfo0Xse3zg%2BesoNmxv%2Fhg%3D&reserved=0
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca3728ea4effe4aabc5a008d4932b4160%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636295261371010790&sdata=O7ngQR%2FVtbIef1%2FXIxbLhxnmxPp3A%2Bd9rTM6TUW8xHs%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca3728ea4effe4aabc5a008d4932b4160%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636295261371010790&sdata=O7ngQR%2FVtbIef1%2FXIxbLhxnmxPp3A%2Bd9rTM6TUW8xHs%3D&reserved=0>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca3728ea4effe4aabc5a008d4932b4160%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636295261371010790&sdata=O7ngQR%2FVtbIef1%2FXIxbLhxnmxPp3A%2Bd9rTM6TUW8xHs%3D&reserved=0>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Confidentiality Notice:
> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
> meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
> 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by
> the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may
> contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney
> work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or
> attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us
> immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original
> transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
>
> ________________________________
>
> ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal
> tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is
> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
> (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
> marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
> addressed herein.
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca3728ea4effe4aabc5a008d4932b4160%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636295261371010790&sdata=O7ngQR%2FVtbIef1%2FXIxbLhxnmxPp3A%2Bd9rTM6TUW8xHs%3D&reserved=0>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca3728ea4effe4aabc5a008d4932b4160%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636295261371010790&sdata=O7ngQR%2FVtbIef1%2FXIxbLhxnmxPp3A%2Bd9rTM6TUW8xHs%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170504/a25d4cda/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1576 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170504/a25d4cda/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1577 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170504/a25d4cda/image002-0001.gif>