[GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8
Maxim Alzoba
m.alzoba at gmail.com
Thu Sep 26 03:02:40 UTC 2019
Hello Claudio,
CcTld registrations are subject to the jurisdictions of respective ccTlds and we can not do anything about it.
Maxim Alzoba
On 26 Sep 2019, 00:04, at 00:04, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com> wrote:
>Phil,
>
>Thank you for this astute summary and for kind words of encouragement.
>I
>think you’ve stated things very well here and I feel it’s essential to
>the
>success of the ICANN WG model to have Co-Chairs who play a neutral and
>supporting role.
>
>I just wanted to note that the outcome we are coming to on this topic
>has
>come about because of a great amount of compromise. There are IP
>organizations like OriGin, who are represented in this WG by Massimo -
>and
>as we heard from him recently - these source identifiers are important
>for
>consumer protection, and for the value they can add to commerce and to
>the
>markets of many countries worldwide.
>
>For example, in the United States, the jurisdiction has agreed to
>protect
>these source identifiers through the international TRIPS agreement
>(although we do not refer to these source identifiers as GIs in the
>States)
>and the U.S sets forth that they are protected conceptually under the
>trademark law system - think FLORIDA ORANGES or IDAHO POTATOES, as
>collective or certification trademarks.
>
>Unfortunately, there is an ongoing problem with the abusive
>registration of
>these identifiers in the gTLD and ccTLD space (in the same manner that
>trademarks are infringed) so ICANN has an important role to play in
>terms
>of addressing the problem, as it does with trademarks; in fact, the
>organization has committed to addressing consumer trust issues under
>its
>formal Mission statement in relation to the new gTLD program.
>
>So I really appreciate everyone’s time and effort (like Rebecca and
>others)
>in playing a constructive role in building consensus around solutions,
>and
>for not simply sweeping the topic under the rug - which would take much
>less time and energy to do, but would not further the public interest
>aspect of our work.
>
>Looking forward to our upcoming call.
>
>Cheers,
>Claudio
>
>On Wednesday, September 25, 2019, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
>wrote:
>
>> As the co-chair who will moderate today’s call, I am pleased to see
>this
>> constructive and well-informed exchange on the e-mail list. It
>appears to
>> be bringing understanding and positions closer on Q8 relating to GIs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Out goal today is to warp up this discussion. It appears to me that
>we
>> have fairly broad agreement within the WG that GIs should not be
>eligible
>> for mandatory Sunrise and Claims RPM protection, but can be listed in
>some
>> type of additional database for select gTLDs that wish to provide
>them with
>> some other protection or priority. I would suggest (and not in any
>way
>> mandate) that we seek to frame a proposal to that end for inclusion
>in the
>> IR; if there are secondary questions or details on which the WG has
>some
>> substantial division, they can also be put out for public comment.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope that observation and suggestion are helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best, Philip
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Philip S. Corwin
>>
>> Policy Counsel
>>
>> VeriSign, Inc.
>>
>> 12061 Bluemont Way
>>
><https://www.google.com/maps/search/12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> 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
>*Tushnet,
>> Rebecca
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 25, 2019 11:07 AM
>> *To:* claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8
>>
>>
>>
>> If they’re not mandatory, the market will ultimately decide whether
>to
>> implement them. I don’t think we have evidence supporting a new
>mandatory
>> procedure.
>>
>> Rebecca Tushnet
>>
>> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
>>
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2019, at 10:56 AM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Rebecca,
>>
>>
>>
>> If you have suggestions on tweaking #1 that’s great. I think the
>biggest
>> help would be if you can provide your suggested text for this
>provision
>> and/or by making edits to the text I provided.
>>
>>
>>
>> The difficulty has been capturing the spirit of the provision in
>textual
>> form. For example, I am fine with removing the extra terminology that
>your
>> reference (“words” “phrases” etc.) if that accomplishes the goal.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the other portions of your reply:
>>
>>
>>
>> it appears that we agree on the need to have more
>> information/clarification/confirmation from staff on how the
>ancillary
>> database system functions (instead of each us forming our own
>independent
>> opinions), so we can craft policy guidance, as appropriate.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have a system build that no one (or almost no one) seems to have a
>firm
>> grasp w/r/t functionality, hence my desire to add policy guidance on
>this
>> aspect.
>>
>>
>>
>> I may be misreading your feedback, but my impression is you are
>objecting
>> in kind to positions that I am expressing that are designed to simply
>> clarify the status quo for everyone. Perhaps because the status quo
>isn’t
>> clear, you have the impression that I am seeking to do more than my
>actual
>> intent.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the Limited Registration System, this already allowed GIs to be
>> registered before General Availability. The Claims Notice is one
>notch down
>> from there, from the level that it would leave more domain names
>available
>> for registration in some cases, so I’m somewhat surprised that you
>don’t
>> support providing registries with having that option available.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, on your concept of free-market mechanisms as a solution, it
>seems
>> like your position is that is a reason or justification to bypass the
>> existing system that has been built for this very purpose. Forcing
>> registries to go outside the system, when we have one already
>established
>> for all new gTLDs, is not the ideal approach in my humble opinion,
>when we
>> can simply clarify or tweak what is already in place.
>>
>>
>>
>> This approach will increase transparency and accountability for the
>> community and ICANN. For this reason, I have my been trying to fit my
>> recommendations on the topics we have within our charter and that
>fall
>> under our remit, and not relying on the free-market approach.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope this helps move the ball forward and thanks for your quIck
>reply.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Claudio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019, Tushnet, Rebecca
><rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> First, the good news: It seems like there is an emerging consensus on
>many
>> of the individual propositions. My comments go to where there are
>still
>> apparently some dispute.
>>
>> 1. The TMCH is for trademarks: …
>>
>> Claudio’s suggestion is to use the language “protected under a
>statute or
>> treaty as a sign that functions as a trademark/source identifier.” I
>> understand the spirit of this suggestion but it won’t perform any
>limiting
>> function, because the statutes that don’t use the word “trademark”
>also
>> don’t use the words “source identifier.” Given that countries may
>also
>> protect, for example, the names of their monarchs by statute, the
>suggested
>> language isn’t particularly useful compared to allowing an applicant
>to
>> show that the statute treats their term as a trademark. For example,
>> national authorities might deem it to be a trademark even if the
>statute
>> doesn’t use that word—this is often how US lawyers talk about the US
>> protections for Smokey Bear, for example—or the standard for
>liability
>> might be confusion as to source, sponsorship, etc. (a trademark
>> standard). (The Red Cross, by the way, possesses a number of live
>> trademark registrations, so needs no help from us in this regard.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Separately, there’s no need and some risk to add in a bunch of extra
>> terms—“signs, words, or phrases” are either duplicative or
>expansionist,
>> neither of which seems desirable here.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. GIs, like other things that are not trademarks, can be the subject
>of
>> ancillary services. … Different providers should be able to compete
>to
>> provide them if desired.
>>
>>
>>
>> Claudio, I don’t understand your claim that no one can currently
>compete
>> to provide ancillary database services. There may not be a market
>demand
>> for it, but that is not something that we can fix with policy or
>should try
>> to fix. We certainly should not hand a new monopoly to Deloitte.
>>
>>
>>
>> You say you’re basing your proposals on Mary’s statement that “the
>> ancillary database service is registry-specific, meaning on a per new
>gTLD
>> basis.” But that claim is purely descriptive and does not establish
>the
>> existence of any barrier: each registry gets to decide whether it
>wants to
>> use an ancillary database. That will always be the case as long as
>> ancillary services are ancillary and not mandatory. Since there are
>no
>> such services operational that we’ve been informed of, it cannot be
>that
>> “the current system doesn’t allow multiple new gTLD registries to
>connect
>> with the same ancillary database.” If Mary believes otherwise, it is
>past
>> time for her to share the facts behind that belief. I believe we
>also have
>> some registry operators in the WG who might be able to shed light on
>> whether they have been prevented from using the same ancillary
>service as
>> another registry, if this is a real problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t believe we should give “further guidance on the interplay
>between
>> contracted parties, ICANN, the operator of the TMCH, and users of the
>> system.” We have not collected data on this. We have no basis for
>making
>> any findings about this. We especially shouldn’t create
>GI/Appellation of
>> Origin protections on the cheap, as you do when you propose to create
>a new
>> Claims procedure for GIs/AOs. If there is registry demand for this,
>then we
>> might have heard about it when we surveyed registry operators; I
>don’t
>> think we did.
>>
>>
>>
>> Separately, your proposal appears to put new obligations on the TMCH
>> provider (“shall establish or create an ancillary database service,
>under
>> appropriate terms of use”). Perhaps staff can shed some light on
>what
>> contractual renegotiations would be required for that. But even if
>> negotiations would be workable, there is still no evidence that the
>market
>> can't handle voluntary ancillary databases. We have enough trouble
>with the
>> mandatory RPMs. Let's stick to them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rebecca Tushnet
>>
>> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
>> 703 593 6759
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 2:50 PM
>> *To:* BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
>> *Cc:* Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>; Ariel Liang <
>> ariel.liang at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Q#8
>>
>>
>>
>> Rebecca, all,
>>
>> Thanks again for your nicely constructed list and for working towards
>> building consensus on the issues.
>>
>> Overall, it looks like we are on the same page in bringing the team
>> together on desired outcomes that are able to reach consensus. To
>continue
>> to move things forward, I believe we need some further confirmation
>or
>> clarification from staff on a small handful of issues, in order to
>ensure
>> that the WG is operating under a shared or common understanding of
>the
>> Clearinghouse functionality, and the associated rules which govern
>its
>> operations. This of course, has ramifications on how we advance the
>> current round of policy recommendations in the Initial Report.
>>
>>
>>
>> For ease of reference, I have provided my comments below, as per your
>> numbered feedback, listed sequentially starting with item #1:
>>
>> 1. The (main) TMCH is for trademarks: those that are registered as
>> trademarks, confirmed by court decision as trademarks, or protected
>by
>> statute or treaty that specifies the trademarks covered (as opposed
>to, for
>> example, Lanham Act §43(a), which grants statutory protection to
>> unregistered marks but doesn’t specify the marks covered). What
>counts as
>> a trademark should be determined by national law, not by the TMCH.
>>
>> CD comments: I fully understand your desired intent here, but w/r/t
>to the
>> wording that will form the basis of the policy recommendation, I
>think we
>> have to be especially careful because this is what led to the issue
>> arising in the first instance.
>>
>>
>>
>> I understand you were not seeking to focus on finding the exact
>> terminology in your last note, and that it was drafted from a higher
>level.
>> However, for the sake of moving things forward, I wanted to clarify
>the
>> text which appears in your #1: "....those that are registered as
>> trademarks....or protected by statute or treaty *that specifies the
>> trademarks covered*" (*emphasis added). *In short, I believe this
>> wording reflects the struggle we were all having during last week's
>> meeting, because often the laws in question do not identify specify
>> the source identifiers (that we know are trademarks) as "trademarks"
>per se.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mary circulated some helpful language on this topic last week, when
>she
>> expressed/asked whether WG members agree: "for the category of “marks
>> protected by statute or treaty”, its scope ought to be limited to
>marks
>> (not otherwise eligible under 3.2.1) that are nevertheless protected
>under
>> a statute or treaty as a sign that functions as a *trademark/*source
>> identifier" (*emphasis added)*. I think Mary's language gets to the
>heart
>> of the issue, so I recommend working off her suggested text.
>>
>> The issue is that the marks/signs (within these statute/treaties)
>which
>> function as source identifiers for particular goods/services are
>sometimes
>> are referred to as "insignia", "words", "phrases", or "signs"; these
>source
>> identifiers are *sui generis*, and have enhanced qualities under the
>law
>> that establish them as "strong" marks, e.g. may possess special
>> remedies that address infringement.
>>
>>
>>
>> For example, see 18 U.S. Code, Section 706. Red Cross. (available at:
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/706
>>
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.law.cornell.edu_uscode_text_18_706&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=vq5pBV3LyYL-VndOVC6QjVMW3aUEKSgGM7bUp5OoHnE&s=Ym_QM-NWjPKswY1enHdA-A36XE-H8WDRbn8bASA3V-E&e=>
>> )
>>
>> “...Whoever, whether a corporation, association, or person, other
>than the
>> American Red Cross and it’s duly authorized employees and agents and
>the
>> sanitary and hospital authorities of the armed forces of the United
>States,
>> uses the emblem of the Greek Red Cross on a white ground, or any sign
>or
>> insignia made or colored in imitation thereof or the words “Red
>Cross” or
>> “Geneva Cross” or any combination of these words -
>>
>> Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six
>months, or
>> both....”
>>
>>
>> Since these marks are protected under special legislation or
>> treaty, a national Trademark Offices (for example the USPTO in the
>> U.S.) may not maintain the marks on their principle register of
>trademarks
>> (the list of registered marks issued and maintained by the office);
>> however, the USPTO maintains these marks on record to enable
>trademark
>> examiners to refuse the registration of other marks which are
>identical or
>> confusingly similar in form. And courts will issue rulings under the
>same
>> effect, so the legislation/treaties situates the marks within the
>trademark
>> system, at both the governmental agency and at the judicial level of
>> jurisprudence.
>>
>> So on the basis that the consensus of the WG is that GIs/Appellations
>of
>> Origin shall not be included in the main TMCH database, then I
>suggest we
>> rely on Mary's proposed text, with an added disclaimer for
>specificity
>> purposes.
>>
>> Section 3.2.3 - "Shall include marks, signs, words, or phrases, that
>are
>> specifically protected under Statute or Treaty, and which function as
>> source identifiers/marks for goods or services, but shall not include
>> marks, signs, words, or phrases that constitute Geographical
>Indications or
>> Appellations of Origin."
>>
>> This will provide the TMCH operator with guidance on what the
>consensus
>> of WG members believe is the (original) intent of this provision.
>>
>> 3. GIs, like other things that are not trademarks, can be the subject
>of
>> ancillary services. These ancillary services are voluntary, not
>mandatory,
>> in new gTLDs. Different providers should be able to compete to
>provide them
>> if desired. There is no existing barrier to multiple registries using
>the
>> same ancillary service, nor should we impose any barriers to that
>> possibility.
>>
>> CD comments: For ease of reference, I have split this statement
>> into two sub-parts below:
>>
>> "Different providers should be able to compete to provide them if
>desired."
>>
>>
>> CD comments: As I understand the current functioning of the
>Clearinghouse
>> system, no option exists for other providers to come in and compete
>to
>> provide ancillary database services, i.e. the system operates under a
>> sole-source contract managed by the current operator of the TMCH, and
>the
>> current operator of the TMCH is the only entity afforded the ability
>to
>> create the ancillary database service(s) system, and this
>> is incorporated in the New gTLD Registry Agreement.
>>
>>
>>
>> "There is no existing barrier to multiple registries using the same
>> ancillary service, nor should we impose any barriers to that
>possibility."
>>
>> CD comments: I agree we that there is no reason to impose barriers on
>the
>> back-end of the system. However, under the current rules, I believe
>there
>> are some existing barriers or limitations that prevent multiple
>registries
>> to use the same ancillary service, so I have recommended text below
>to
>> remove these barriers.
>>
>> I am basing this on the input we received from Mary, when she
>informed us
>> that the ancillary database service is registry-specific, meaning on
>a per
>> new gTLD basis. So if one organization operates multiple new gTLDs in
>the
>> same jurisdiction, each new gTLD is considered an individual
>> registry, and the current system doesn't allow multiple new gTLD
>registries
>> to connect with the same ancillary database.
>>
>> In #6. "As long as the public-facing aspects of the RPMs operate
>properly,
>> we should be indifferent to the “back end”—whether ancillary
>databases are
>> in the “same database” or a “different database,” should Deloitte
>choose to
>> operate an ancillary database."
>>
>>
>> CD comments: I agree that we should be indifferent to the "back
>> end" aspect of this - and also agree with your point that it doesn't
>> matter whether the ancillary database is the "same database" or a
>> "different database". This approach fits in neatly with the point
>above,
>> e.g. that there has been no identified justification to impose
>barriers or
>> other limitations on the functioning of the back-end ancillary
>service
>> database system.
>>
>> Unfortunately, as noted supra, I believe there are some existing
>barriers
>> and limitations, which prevent multiple registries from connecting to
>the
>> "same database" and thereby preventing GIs/Appellations of Origin to
>be
>> recorded in the same database to be used across multiple registries.
>>
>> To address this issue, I have drafted text below for inclusion as a
>policy
>> recommendation, with the objective of reducing unnecessary
>> red-tape/administrative burdens when a registry operator is simply
>seeking
>> to operationalize the rules of the new gTLD program.
>>
>>
>>
>> Moreover, I believe the current system lacks clarity on how
>registries
>> are to establish the ancillary database service(s) for their new
>gTLD, so I
>> have included some further guidance on the interplay between
>contracted
>> parties, ICANN, the operator of the TMCH, and users of the system.
>This was
>> referenced in my earlier proposal, but I did not include the actual
>text
>> that sets forth the parameters. Hopefully, this will make the system
>work
>> better for contracted parties and users alike.
>>
>>
>> Here is the proposed text/policy guidance that is designed
>> to integrate your #3 to achieve what I believe is its intended
>effect:
>>
>> "The operator of the TMCH, upon request of any new gTLD registry
>operator,
>> shall establish or create an ancillary database service, under
>appropriate
>> terms of use, which may be used for the recordation of Geographical
>> Indications and Appellations of Origin that are protected under
>local,
>> national, or international laws.
>>
>> Upon establishment by the operator of the TMCH, the ancillary
>database
>> service shall have no limitations (express or otherwise) on the
>number
>> and/or type of new gTLD registries that shall be permitted to connect
>to,
>> or interface with, the ancillary database, unless the requesting
>Registry
>> Operator sets forth any desired limitations, upon creation of its
>ancillary
>> database service.
>>
>> Registry Operator shall not be required to obtain independent
>> authorization or approval from ICANN to create or establish the
>ancillary
>> database service, but shall possess express authorization to direct
>> performance by the operator of the TMCH to establish or create the
>> ancillary database service, under the express terms of the registry
>> operator's New gTLD Registry Agreement with ICANN."
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, the last element of my proposal (which fits under the second
>> sub-part of #3 on your list), is to provide the ability or option for
>a new
>> gTLD registry to utilize the ancillary database to operate a Claims
>Notice
>> for the GIs/Appellations of Origin that are recorded in the ancillary
>> database.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Under the sole discretion of the registry operator, or registry
>> operator(s), that interface with, or are connected to an ancillary
>database
>> service, such registry operator may elect to implement an additional
>> Claims period for Geographical Indications and Appellations of Origin
>that
>> are recorded in the ancillary database service; such Claims period
>shall
>> occur for either 60 or 90 days (or another period of time as set
>forth by
>> the registry operator) following the conclusion of the TM Claims
>service
>> notification period."
>>
>> The benefit of this approach is to provide new gTLD registries
>> with options for utilizing the ancillary database service, instead of
>only
>> being able to use the Limited Registration Period, when domain names
>are
>> registered. Some registries may instead select the additional Claims
>> Notification period for GIs/Appellations of Origin (either instead
>of, or
>> in addition to, the Limited Registration Period), perhaps depending
>on
>> their local laws or jurisdiction.
>>
>> I hope this helps build upon on the progress being made on question
>#8.
>> Please do not hesitate to let me know of any questions or comments.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Claudio
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:31 PM claudio di gangi
><ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Rebecca, all,
>>
>>
>>
>> I join Brian in thanking you for expressing your views so clearly
>here.
>>
>>
>>
>> With the benefit of having a little more time, I will reply to your
>note
>> - and to the helpful feedback that Mary recently contributed on the
>list,
>> prior to our upcoming call on Wednesday.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Claudio
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:31 AM BECKHAM, Brian
><brian.beckham at wipo.int>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Rebecca for the clarification (especially on 1 and 4)!
>>
>>
>>
>> Claudio, others – any reaction?
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 23, 2019 3:53 PM
>> *To:* BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>; Ariel Liang <
>> ariel.liang at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Q#8
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks. Yes, I did intend to incorporate the broad definition of
>> trademarks (where the term is shorthand for trademarks, service
>marks,
>> collective marks, and certification marks).
>>
>>
>>
>> For #4, I attempted to be clear that it is not about mandating *or
>*foreclosing
>> other programs that might voluntarily be adopted for specific
>registries,
>> but only about what should happen under the existing RPMs.
>>
>>
>>
>> In terms of labeling, I deliberately did not characterize Deloitte's
>> practices. I believe #5 is purely descriptive of Deloitte's
>practices.
>> However, aside from GIs, my understanding of our discussion is that
>there
>> is consensus that "other IP" was supposed to refer only to ancillary
>> services and thus that Deloitte's current advertising of it as equal
>to
>> registrations, etc. in terms of eligibility for Claims/Notice is not
>> consistent with the AGB.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rebecca Tushnet
>>
>> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
>> 703 593 6759
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 23, 2019 5:14 AM
>> *To:* Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>; Ariel Liang <
>> ariel.liang at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Q#8
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Rebecca for the attempt at bringing this together.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would encourage Claudio and other proponents of related proposals
>to
>> weigh in.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rebecca, can you clarify whether No. 4 below is intended to
>specifically
>> foreclose use of any entry in an ancillary database for
>registry-adopted
>> programs such as a founder’s program (i.e., not an “existing RPM”)
>which
>> may have a similar early-allocation effect as a sunrise.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, for No. 1, can you clarify if this is intended to also capture
>> Kathy’s email of last Tuesday noting a proposed definition for
>trademarks:
>> “By "trademarks," the WG means "trademarks, service marks,
>certification
>> marks and collective marks.”?
>>
>>
>>
>> As we constructively attempt to produce a consensus recommendation on
>this
>> topic, noting the preamble below, I do want to remind the WG however
>of an
>> email from April 2017 expressing concerns about labeling Deloitte’s
>actions
>> (especially given the possibility of differing reasonable
>interpretations
>> about the “other marks” clause): https://mm.icann.org/
>> pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001722.html
>>
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg_2017-2DApril_001722.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=et_H2dFB0D2ttCTefu6tqaN59DJqm5SX6UhatgAapdg&s=Yiut4ybvRqo3pqM55_6q-RnltcK2NrmzcrvQ38LJc1Q&e=>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of
>*Tushnet,
>> Rebecca
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 23, 2019 3:28 AM
>> *To:* Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Q#8
>>
>>
>>
>> I understand that we’re trying to get some results out the door for
>public
>> comment, and I would suggest that don't need exact wording right now,
>but
>> we do need to clarify that Deloitte is doing the wrong thing. I
>think we
>> may be able to reach consensus about several different things:
>>
>> 1. The TMCH is for trademarks: those that are registered as
>> trademarks, confirmed by court decision as trademarks, or
>protected by
>> statute or treaty that specifies the trademarks covered (as
>opposed to, for
>> example, Lanham Act §43(a), which grants statutory protection to
>> unregistered marks but doesn’t specify the marks covered). What
>counts as
>> a trademark should be determined by national law, not by the TMCH.
>> 2. Specifically, GIs (that do not also fall under (1)) are not
>> trademarks.
>> 3. GIs, like other things that are not trademarks, can be the
>subject
>> of ancillary services. These ancillary services are voluntary,
>not
>> mandatory, in new gTLDs. Different providers should be able to
>compete to
>> provide them if desired. There is no existing barrier to multiple
>> registries using the same ancillary service, nor should we impose
>any
>> barriers to that possibility.
>> 4. GIs and other subject matter of ancillary services should not
>be
>> subject to Sunrise or Notice under the existing RPMs.
>> 5. Deloitte is (a) registering GIs under the theory that they are
>> covered by "statute/treaty," and (b) indicating to TMCH potential
>> registrants that "other IP" is eligible for Claims and Notice in
>the TMCH
>> by grouping “other IP” with registrations, court-confirmed marks,
>and marks
>> protected by statute or treaty in its public-facing materials.
>Both of
>> these practices should stop.
>> 6. As long as the public-facing aspects of the RPMs operate
>properly,
>> we should be indifferent to the “back end”—whether ancillary
>databases are
>> in the “same database” or a “different database,” should Deloitte
>choose to
>> operate an ancillary database.
>>
>> My hope is that, although there may not be universal agreement to
>each one
>> of these statements, we can approach consensus on each individually.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>Ariel
>> Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 18, 2019 1:47 PM
>> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* [GNSO-RPM-WG] FW: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Q#8
>>
>>
>>
>> Forwarding Claudio’s proposal, which was originally sent to the TM
>Claims
>> Sub Team mailing list.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ariel
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Gnso-rpm-trademark <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org> on
>> behalf of claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 1:43 PM
>> *To: *"gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is my compromise proposal consolidated/clarified in one
>location:
>>
>>
>>
>> *1) Going forward, GI may be accepted in the Clearinghouse (and
>recorded
>> separately as such within the database to distinguish them from TM
>> records) under "3.2.4 - other marks that constitute intellectual
>> property" OR shall be permitted to be recorded in one ancillary GI
>> database, e.g. "the unitary, ancillary GI Database", that all
>> registries/registrars may voluntarily connect with;*
>>
>>
>>
>> *2) GIs shall NOT be protected during the Sunrise or TM Claims
>period,
>> unless they are also registered as trademarks and otherwise meet the
>> qualifying criteria for such trademarks;*
>>
>>
>>
>> *3) the protection of GIs (those that are not also registered as
>> trademarks) shall NOT be considered a mandatory RPM*
>>
>> * for any new gTLD registry;*
>>
>>
>>
>> *4) for new gTLD registries that desire or choose to protect GIs (as
>> permitted by the current rules) based on local laws and/or for other
>> consumer protection reasons, GIs may be protected and registered as
>domain
>> names during the Limited Registration Period, and/or by the issuance
>of a
>> GI Claims Notice, and which shall be supported by the unitary,
>ancillary GI
>> database.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:34 PM Kathy Kleiman
><kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Claudio and All,
>>
>> For those who may not be able to follow all of the messages, could
>you
>> send a full set of what you are thinking of for new language/Q#8? At
>least
>> two Pauls have commented, so I am not sure what you are referencing.
>Having
>> it all in one place would be useful.
>>
>> Tx, Kathy
>>
>>
>>
>> <<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
>>
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.google.com_maps_search_12061-2BBluemont-2BWay-2B-250D-250AReston-2C-2BVA-2B20190-3Fentry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=sZvVLfMvAcqYxiQ-rhRJM6e0aFoW9sg6-3f-UM4l0Wg&s=yFpYxl1PDVkUqjcTEZmFSaOVjCxrtuMz2Qb8sHbigZI&e=>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
>>
>> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=52KmIhnHj5Axnm4LE5UyKAIrRA1xEOigiWV8wiRH0bM&s=3-CH2yHQOMEyGiI0dbvQXcS0nmrm7S1-sfQ4CW5jzpQ&e=>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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 [icann.org]
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=KYlcfsWyYm_tQtBDFQJnW1XS2IJVogtk9SXYkD2fgss&s=1EntPgkMhT4HiLWYVgIkhrDOf590TOpdMgm7ys1qm64&e=>)
>and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
>[icann.org]
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=KYlcfsWyYm_tQtBDFQJnW1XS2IJVogtk9SXYkD2fgss&s=kCOO1-xTnGiN6mrthgEVlkBFL1R3CVLrYHmMHr4QDvQ&e=>).
>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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
>> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=52KmIhnHj5Axnm4LE5UyKAIrRA1xEOigiWV8wiRH0bM&s=3-CH2yHQOMEyGiI0dbvQXcS0nmrm7S1-sfQ4CW5jzpQ&e=>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> [icann.org]
>>
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=KYlcfsWyYm_tQtBDFQJnW1XS2IJVogtk9SXYkD2fgss&s=1EntPgkMhT4HiLWYVgIkhrDOf590TOpdMgm7ys1qm64&e=>)
>> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
>> [icann.org]
>>
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=KYlcfsWyYm_tQtBDFQJnW1XS2IJVogtk9SXYkD2fgss&s=kCOO1-xTnGiN6mrthgEVlkBFL1R3CVLrYHmMHr4QDvQ&e=>).
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=vq5pBV3LyYL-VndOVC6QjVMW3aUEKSgGM7bUp5OoHnE&s=6sG9Dv5m6bX7JcCnPBr6wJoMdZCV2Suk7qiKv-fOzXM&e=>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=vq5pBV3LyYL-VndOVC6QjVMW3aUEKSgGM7bUp5OoHnE&s=3dpeBtC1Wb_-50vr3c8hQFaCa6MyN2NwBLHWHTDyXQw&e=>)
>> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
>>
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=vq5pBV3LyYL-VndOVC6QjVMW3aUEKSgGM7bUp5OoHnE&s=PZjMxPQIoBxUKqQDqOQ9PJLqTn28-qeZ4miGLRwGiwo&e=>).
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
>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/20190926/e315de11/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the GNSO-RPM-WG
mailing list