[GNSO-RPM-WG] Edits and updates

[Paul Tattersfield]

Dear All,

Recommendation TMCH #1 Edits and Updates

I am concerned that the new language and the titles, separates and
diminishes well-developed recommendation and guidance from each other. The
precisely drafted clauses seem to be more separated from the policy
principles than in the final language draft which published to the WG list
for review September, 14th. The whole point of drafting precise language
was to make sure unintended consequences were minimised in a way that is
very hard to do with policy principles. It’s really a question of emphasis
and weight. It feels the new language is introducing more and more
potential for problems down the line.

Someone has introduced the new concept of “TMCH Validation Provider” and I
wasn’t aware of this change being flagged to the working group.
(Highlighted in the attached document)

This seems to me to be a new concept and potentially infers changes to the
role of the TMCH provider whose job is primarily to authenticate rather
than validate. Validation currently is for Sunrise and the newly introduced
language may lead to the impression that  the working group wished a
significant role change. Rebecca & I were very careful to ensure we did not
take the ‘validation’ role for entry into the clearinghouse away from the
trademark offices alone.

I am not aware of any of the above being highlighted on the call. Ideally I
think we should return to the recommendation language of September 14th if
there is to be no further discussion.

Context language

I believe the context language was very new and for me password protected
until just before the RPM WG call at ICANN 69. So the review time for this
language was very short and outside the normal working group weekly
meetings times.

Again the Context language seems to me to want to put more distance between
the precisely drafted clauses and the policy language. The policy
recommendation came from the implementation guidance so this doesn’t seem
quite right to say – “

*The Working Group ultimately agreed on the policy principles reflecting
those ideas, which guides the suggested amendment to the Applicant
Guidebook (AGB) text in the Implementation Guidance. *The second paragraph
of the new context language needs a lot of work. It also just seems to
triplicate
(and triplicate incorrectly) what is already there twice. If it is
necessary it would be an improvement to say:

*(1) mandatory RPMs should only be for word marks, not other types of
intellectual property or geographical indications; (2) while other types of
marks can be entered into an additional/ancillary database maintained by
the TMCH Provider, they are not eligible for Sunrise and Claims; and (3)
the ability for the TMCH Provider and Registry Operators to offer
additional/voluntary ancillary services should be preserved (e.g., via
ancillary database).*

Best regards, Paul

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 11:20 PM Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
wrote:

> Hi All,
> Attached please find my proposed edits to the Background section of our
> report. We had a little more interaction with the EPDP report than noted --
> and went past the summary wave table to the actual EPDP recommendations to
> determine that there was no conflict between them and our WG
> recommendations. I've proposed revisions to the background text to show
> this process with the steps involved. As a WG, we certainly did our due
> diligence on this important task!
>
> Best and have a good weekend,
> Kathy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201024/6433c589/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Trademark Clearinghouse.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 40960 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20201024/6433c589/TrademarkClearinghouse-0001.doc>