[GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 18 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Wed Sep 18 09:53:51 UTC 2019

Hi Paul,

Speaking personally here, to try to get back into these discussions, a few weeks ago I tried to go through some of the blogs that were mentioned on this WG email list, and the stories I ran across concerning claimed Sunrise abuses generally did not make reference to the type of mark (composite, figurative, stylized, design, word+design, or otherwise).

Two quick examples:

·         https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/30/the-numbers-are-in-donuts-sunrises-typically-get-100-domains-but-they-also-got-gamed/

·         https://www.thedomains.com/2015/05/28/trademark-game-playing-results-in-great-generic-domains-being-registered-in-casino-sunrise/

Brian

From: Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 9:54 AM
To: Jason Schaeffer <jason at esqwire.com>
Cc: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>; Zak Muscovitch <zak at muscovitch.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 18 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Are there any examples of where a composite or figurative mark has been used in either Sunrise or Claims or is it just that Deloitte are accepting them in to the TMCH? Thanks Paul

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:51 AM Jason Schaeffer <jason at esqwire.com<mailto:jason at esqwire.com>> wrote:
Hi Brian,

Please note that in Zak’s absence (as he is travelling and may not be joining the call) I have been asked to present on his behalf.   Although I personally believed that we were making progress on some of these points on last week’s WG call, nonetheless given the apparent lack of compromise with the IPC, you are correct that the compromise proposal has been withdrawn and the attached Kleiman/Muscovitch proposal remains for consideration and comment.

Kindly refer to the “original” September 4th proposal (attached) to address the topic of the TMCH and word marks v. design marks.

Thanks,

Jason

From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 9:28 AM
To: Zak Muscovitch; Julie Hedlund; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 18 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Thanks very much Zak for this heads up that you are withdrawing your “compromise proposal” given the lack of additional interest in it.

In the interests of time, and personally (while I am certain Phil and Kathy would agree), I want to say that it was encouraging to hear that you and others attempted offline to bring this together with other proposals (e.g., Greg’s).

Your below withdrawal of course raises the question of where this leaves us on the earlier “Kleiman / Muscovitch” proposal, in particular given that the now-withdrawn proposal was already an attempt to garner support for a compromise on the earlier “Kleiman / Muscovitch” proposal.

By way of background, as was discussed during a call with Staff and our WG liaisons (incoming and outgoing), we feel we need to recognize when there may be diverging views and that wide agreement on a compromise proposal may not be possible (in which case alternate views can be recorded, and public comments sought).

In that light, have you (and Kathy) considered the possibility – even if per your below message you still support it – of also withdrawing the “Kleiman / Muscovitch” proposal in advance of the call, or do you nevertheless consider brief further discussion on that would in the circumstances still be necessary and/or useful (if only as a last attempt at compromise/to cover this off)?

Brian

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 5:23 AM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 18 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Dear WG members, staff and co-chairs,

Since I may not be able to attend the upcoming call this Wednesday, I want to let you know that since last week’s call, I have not become aware of any additional interest in the ‘compromise’ proposal which I had circulated and which we had discussed on last week’s call (i.e. the one that allowed ‘design marks’ into TMCH but didn’t afford Sunrise priority). Accordingly, I am withdrawing it and continue to support the first proposal, namely the ‘Kleiman / Muscovitch proposal as revised (see; https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-09-11+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG?preview=/117604906/117605391/Kleiman%20Muscovitch%20Proposal%20Compare%20Doc.pdf).

Yours truly,

Zak Muscovitch
ICA General Counsel

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
Date: Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 1:04 AM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 18 September 17:00-18:30 UTC

Dear RPM WG members,

Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 18 September at 17:00-18:30 UTC.

For ease of reference, here are the actions from the meeting on 11 September:

Actions: WG members should continue consideration and discussion of Open Charter Questions 7 and 8 (see attached documents and discussions on the list) and review the discussion from the calls on 04 and 11 September via the Zoom chat, recording, and transcript (see the posting on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-09-11+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG.

Proposed Agenda:

  1.  Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest
  2.  Determine Support for and finalize discussion on proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions (see attached Summary document.  It is the same as the May 2017 version but with formatting for readability and text from relevant TMCH and AGB references):

     *   Question 7 – Finalize Discussion on Original and Revised Proposals from Kathy Kleiman/Zak Muscovitch and Greg Shatan
     *   Question 8 – Finalize Discussion on Proposals from Paul McGrady, Kathy Kleiman, Jonathan Agmon, and Claudio di Gangi

  1.  AOB

Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel

World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20190918/0519995b/attachment-0001.html>