[GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8

[claudio di gangi]

Rebecca, all,

I support John's proposal below as the simplest approach, with Paul's
language about 3.2.4 being the qualifying text for the inclusion of
GIs, along with a provision this IP database will be centralized for all
new gTLD registries.

Rebecca - you asked about the supporting rationale in a recent note, so I
would like to address your question.

The purpose is to avoid creating a scenario of having 300 (or pick some
number) of ancillary databases, each requiring separate submissions and
validations. Again, I say this because Mary confirmed that currently the
ancillary database concept is registry-specific. The main TMCH is not
registry-specific, all new gTLD registries connect to the database in a
unified manner.

For the sake of providing examples, <.tea> launches as a new gTLD in the
next round; that registry will need to expend time and resources to
collaborate with Deloitte to establish a new ancillary database, and the
regional authority/producers of DARJEELING TEA, (under the current model)
would be required to submit the GI registration to the ancillary database
of <.tea> and have it validated at that time.

In the same round, <.चाय> launches ("tea" in the Hindi script - a language
spoken in India, as an IDN), the current model requires this same (or
different) registry operator to create another new ancillary database,
with new submissions of registrations, additional validations, etc.

<.drinks>, <.beverages>, <.web>, <.internet>, etc.. the list goes on and
on, for every new gTLD there has to be separate ancillary databases. Each
registry and registrar will then have to allocate resources to promote the
registry-specific database to IP owners around the world, and connect to
the database from a technical level. I can only imagine the confusion and
unnecessary costs that this approach would impose on contracted parties and
the public.

It would also defeat the purpose and benefit of a having a centralized,
unified system that simplifies recordation and validation from both an
administrative and technical basis for all parties.

The Limited Registration Period is an existing RPM that functions similar
to Sunrise, but takes place after the Sunrise Period, during which
time these 3.2.4. marks can be protected. Since it is already permitted, I
propose that we specify there is a voluntary option for a IP Claims notice
for these 3.2.4 marks (identical to the TM Claims notice, i.e. using the
same language).

These are completely voluntary RPMs for contracted parties - especially,
for those that operate in jurisdictions where GIs are protected under local
laws, and/or for those which decide to take proactive measures to prevent
abusive registrations in their TLD(s) to have a safe namespace for
their users. Since registries are already allowed to create voluntary RPMs,
the proposal is based on improving things from a technical and
administrative basis, in a manner that is fully consistent with the law,
and with the overall goal of protecting consumers and promoting trust in
new gTLDs.

Finally, as Brian noted there is an existing database of GIs, managed by
OriGin, which Deloitte/IBM can interface with to help simplify the process,
which is an idea we can include for public comment in association with the
main recommendation.

All we need to do is agree that this approach makes sense from a policy
perspective, and the IRT that follows this PDP can develop the appropriate
implementation procedures to put everything into place.

Please let me know of any questions.

Best regards,
Claudio



On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:23 PM John McElwaine <
john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com> wrote:

> I would propose simplifying this a bit.  The issue that we have is that
> Deloitte should not be placing “other marks that constitute intellectual
> property” in the “Clearinghouse”.  The Trademark Clearinghouse is more than
> just to service Sunrise and Claims services.  See AGB TMCH Section 1.2
> (“The Clearinghouse will be required to separate its two primary functions:
> (i) authentication and validation of the trademarks in the Clearinghouse;
> and (ii) serving as a database to provide information to the new gTLD
> registries to support pre-launch Sunrise or Trademark Claims Services.
> Whether the same provider could serve both functions or whether two
> providers will be determined in the tender process.”)    Unfortunately,
> Section 3.2 muddies the waters and lists “other marks” as being capable of
> inclusion “in the Clearinghouse”.
>
>
>
> However, the purpose behind Section 3.2.2 is provided a bit more light in
> Section 3.6:  “Data supporting entry into the Clearinghouse of marks that
> constitute intellectual property of types other than those set forth in
> sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 above shall be determined by the registry operator and
> the Clearinghouse based on the services any given registry operator chooses
> to provide.”  With respect to such other IP, the “Trademark Clearinghouse
> Service Provider may provide ancillary services, as long as those services
> and *any data used for those services are kept separate from the
> Clearinghouse database*.”
>
>
>
> Thus, as I mentioned on the call, a simple solution is that we recommend
> “other marks that constitute intellectual property (under 3.2.2 and 3.6)”
> currently in the Trademark Clearinghouse must be placed into a separate
> ancillary database by the operator and not in the Trademark Clearinghouse.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> * On Behalf Of *Tushnet,
> Rebecca
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:24 PM
> *To:* claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>; Corwin, Philip <
> pcorwin at verisign.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8
>
>
>
> *◄External Email►* - From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>
>
>
> I'm still quite factually confused by this proposal.  "Accepted in the
> Clearinghouse" until now has meant "gets Claims and is eligible for Sunrise
> upon proof of use." It appears to me that this is proposing a nontrivial
> technical change (at the very least the implementation of a new coding
> category, which will have to be retrofitted to existing entries), without
> evidence either of its need or its feasibility.
>
>
>
> Relatedly: If GIs are to be treated so differently, why put them in the
> Clearinghouse,  given that there is consensus that they shouldn't be used
> for Claims or Sunrise?  Kathy's clarifying language allows for registries
> etc. to adopt various business models and for Deloitte and other operators
> to run systems that facilitate those business models, including the ones
> Claudio hypothesizes.  (And I'm not sure we should hand Deloitte an extra
> business that would make competition in the market for providing additional
> services less likely.)
>
>
>
>
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
>
> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
> 703 593 6759
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of claudio
> di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:38 PM
> *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8
>
>
>
> thanks, Phil. Very helpful as always.
>
>
>
> I see your point that proposal #1 and #2 overlap, in the sense that they
> both deal with whether GIs should be recorded in the TMCH. My proposal (#3)
> integrates the other two proposals.
>
>
>
> My concern during the call was that I felt a premature signal being
> expressed that agreement was being quickly being reached
> after several members spoke (and I was one of them), while several other
> members asked clarifying questions. I may be mistaken, but don't recall
> Jason or Rebecca objecting to the thoughts I expressed during discussion on
> proposal #1.
>
>
>
> If I am mistaken, and there was a meaningfully larger list of proponents
> for proposal #1 expressed on the call, I am happy to be corrected - please
> let me know.
>
>
>
> From my perspective, the majority of members did not express a position
> while the discussion was taking place, so I was left confused under what
> basis that statement that consensus was reached was based upon.
>
>
>
> This is also why I recently expressed not having the benefit of the
> informal poll that you conducted two weeks ago. Can we please do this
> tomorrow to get a better sense of where folks stand?
>
>
>
> On this same line of reasoning, I was concerned that we did not have full
> participation on the last week's call (where any registries and registrars
> on the call?). Moreover, I indicated last week that I had off-line
> discussions with WG members who expressed support for my suggested
> approach, but were not able to join the call, so I was hoping to hear from
> them on the list prior to Wednesday.
>
>
>
> The transcript and recording were posted by Julie on Friday, 13 Sept. so
> members did not really have much time (Friday and Monday) to reply with
> input before things (I personally feel) got somewhat short-cut this morning
> with the posting that expressed here is the consensus view of the WG, along
> with the associated implementation text.
>
>
>
> My concern when this occurs is it changes the dynamic about how members
> feel about weighing-in and 'going against the thread' so to speak, and also
> may create confusion about the accurate state of play.
>
>
>
> In terms of substance and to clarify, my proposal is based on finding
> common ground and compromise that integrates the two proposals, as per the
> following:
>
>
>
> 1) Going forward, GI are accepted in the Clearinghouse or ONE main
> ancillary database that all registries/registrars can connect to (which
> potentially can be integrated with the main external GI database that
> exists, with Deloitte performing validations);
>
>
>
> 2) GIs are NOT protected during the Sunrise or Claims period, which remain
> for trademarks; which was something that we established during the review
> of Sunrise and Claims.
>
>
>
> 3) the protection of GIs are NOT mandatory for any new gTLD registry
>
>
>
> 4) for new gTLD registries that choose and desire to protect GIs (as the
> current rules permit) because of local laws and/or other reasons, they are
> protected during the Limited Registration Period, to help prevent abusive
> registrations before General Availability.
>
>
>
> The rationale for this approach is that GIs are one of the three major
> forms of IP (patents, trademarks, and GIs) and function as source
> identifiers for goods and services in a manner that is similar
> to trademarks (and can be registered as domains in the same manner). For
> example, GIs are protected in the United States (under the TRIPS agreement)
> as collective or certification marks, think FLORIDA ORANGES or IDAHO
> POTATOES.
>
>
>
> But in other countries, outside of the United States, they are protected
> under local laws that place them on a separate registry, apart from the
> trademark register.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps clarify status, and thanks for everyone's ongoing
> contributions.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:34 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
> wrote:
>
> Claudio—
>
>
>
> This message reflects the views of the co-chairs.
>
>
>
> Q8 and all of its related proposals were extensively discussed on the
> September 4th call. The meeting on 11 September was a continued
> discussion on Q8 and Q7 in case there were further proposals, and the major
> focus was on Q7 as we had run out of time on the prior call and a new
> modified proposal had been submitted for discussion.
>
>
>
> As regards Q 8, all of the first three proposals converge in that they
> would limit the registration of GIs in the TMCH to “marks” of some sort,
> whether trademarks or collective marks or certification marks; there also
> seemed to be some recognition and agreement that GIs that did not
> constitute “marks” could be recorded in an ancillary database for the
> purpose of assisting certain new gTLDs that recognized and provided some
> additional consideration to them. It appeared to the co-chairs that
> restricting TMCH  recordation of GIs to those that constituted “marks” had
> fairly broad support among WG members participating on the calls.
>
>
>
> In regard to your fourth proposal -- “(1) Add the consideration of GIs to
> the policy review of the Sunrise and Claims services; and (2) withhold
> final consideration of the current TMCH proposals relating to GIs, until we
> conclude the policy review of the new gTLD RPMs (as described in the
> Charter).” – the Sunrise and Claims reviews have been concluded, and we are
> now wrapping up (concluding) our review of the new gTLD RPMs. So this
> proposal no longer seems timely or relevant; but if you wish to amend it
> and make a specific proposal for the treatment of GIs in the TMCH, tomorrow
> is the time to make it.
>
>
>
> Finally, as regards your proposal that we withhold a decision until
> Deloitte participated in a call on this subject, we see no reason to do so
> as there is no indication that Deloitte has changed its practice in regard
> to GI recordation since it wrote to the WG two years ago.
>
>
>
> In conclusion, we intend to finish the WG’s consideration of Q8 tomorrow
> but will facilitate discussion of an amended proposal from you if you wish
> to offer one.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Brian
>
> Philip
>
> Kathy
>
>
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin
>
> Policy Counsel
>
> VeriSign, Inc.
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> 703-948-4648/Direct
>
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *claudio
> di gangi
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 11:22 AM
> *To:* Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8
>
>
>
> Kathy, all,
>
>
>
> Last week, we spent the first full hour of the call discussing the first
> Question 8 proposal, and zero minutes on the second proposal on Question #8
> (In comparison we spent much time discussing both proposals for question
> #7).
>
>
>
> I am aware that some members spoke in support of the first proposal (I was
> on audio only), but do not know how many, while some others did not speak
> in support, and that we agreed to spend this full week to solicit WG
> members views on the list before moving forward. This week has not yet
> concluded (we have through today), yet new language is being posted below
> now for consideration.
>
>
>
> A few additional points, the week prior Phil conducted an informal poll
> using the Zoom room functionality, which helped provide transparency on WG
> members views for consensus building, which was not done last week on
> Question #8.
>
>
>
> Nor has there been an effort to bring the various proponents together to
> reach a compromise position, which we recently did in the sprint of the
> consensus-building process on Question #7, the design mark topic. So I’m
> not sure why question #8 is being treated so differently in all these
> various ways (as described above) compared to Question #7.
>
>
>
> Can someone kindly shed some light on this disparity in treatment between
> the way we are approaching question 7 and question 8?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Last week we found considerable overlap and common ground on Q#8.  I
> promised to circulate language sharing that agreement and slightly refining
> existing proposals.
>
> Q#8:
>
> 3.2 The standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse are:
>
> 3.2.1 Nationally or regionally registered word marks from all
> jurisdictions.
>
> 3.2.2 Any word mark that has been validated through a court of law or
> other judicial proceeding.
>
> 3.2.3 Any word marks specified in and protected by a statute or treaty *as
> trademarks *[1] in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the
> Clearinghouse for inclusion.
>
> 3.2.4 Other marks that constitute intellectual property.  [see below]
>
> 3.2.5 Protections afforded to trademark registrations do not extend to
> applications for registrations, marks.
>
> [1]  *By "trademarks," the WG means "trademarks, service marks,
> certification marks and collective marks."*
>
> For purposes of clarity, separate or ancillary databases of the Trademark
> Clearinghouse Provider (or another provider) may include other marks, but
> those databases should not be used for Sunrise or Trademark Claims Notices
> under the RPMs. Registries may use those separate or ancillary databases to
> provide additional services but are not required to do so under the RPMs.
>
> (Appropriate corresponding changes will be percolated across the *Trademark
> Clearinghouse* Applicant Guidebook)
>
> -----------------
>
> Best, Kathy
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice
>
> This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from
> disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to
> read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and
> delete all copies of this message.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20190918/b84b251a/attachment-0001.html>