<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial;color:navy">Sorry
Kathy, but I believe your thinking on this is fundamentally flawed. There is
nothing in STI Principle 1.1 that requires the ‘registration’ of a trademark or
service mark. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial;color:navy"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial;color:navy">The
registration of trademarks simply evidences the existence of marks of the
underlying goods and services. 6ter evidences Governmental & IGO marks in a similar way.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial;color:navy"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial;color:navy">In
order to have their mark infringed a Government or IGO has to offer a service
i.e. be known by that mark, this is sufficient under TMCH.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial;color:navy"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial;color:navy">There
is therefore no need to change the existing rules and I beleive this proposal should be
withdrawn.<br>
<br>
<br>
Paul</span></p>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Kathy Kleiman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
All,<br>
Question #8 has been very much before us in discussions online,
questions to Deloitte, and at meetings. I greatly respect Paul
McGrady's early submission, and of course, support it. But I think
that the requirements of this process require a little more
foundation and discussion of harm, and I see a slightly different
scope of concern. Accordingly, this longer discussion is set out
below (and attached as a PDF). This is a separate recommendation
from that of Paul's, hence its title "Recommendation II for Question
#8." <br>
<br>
As before, I submit this recommendation in my capacity as a member
of the Working Group, and not as a co-chair. <br>
<br>
Tx you for your review, <br>
Kathy<br>
------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>--------------<br>
<br>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Recommendation for Question #8: Marks Protected
by Statue or
Treaty<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">It is with considerable interest that the RPM WG
has evaluated the
question of Deloitte accepting into the TMCH database marks
protected by
statute or treaty. In our investigation we have found:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4138471271028168620MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><span>1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">The
wording that creates this subcategory of protected marks does
not come from the
recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council or ICANN Board; <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4138471271028168620MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><span>2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Everyone
who sees these rules interprets them differently:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4138471271028168620MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4138471271028168620MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Some think it is solely to protect those
marks expressly set
out in treaty, e.g., “Olympics”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4138471271028168620MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Others think it is to protect categories of
organizations,
such as International Governmental Organizations; and <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4138471271028168620MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Still others think it is to protect such as
geographical
indications.</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4138471271028168620MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4138471271028168620MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><span>3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Deloitte
will not explain how they interpret this section or what they
are accepted into
the TMCH database. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4138471271028168620MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4138471271028168620MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><span>4.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Acceptance
of “marks protected by statute or treaty” appears to be a direct
violation of
the original intent and instructions of the rules adopted by the
GNSO Council
and ICANN Board. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4138471271028168620MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_4138471271028168620MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Specifically, Item 1.1 of the TMCH rules
adopted by the
Council and Board provides for only acceptance of trademarks:<span> </span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">“The name of the rights protection mechanism
should be the ‘Trademark
Clearinghouse’ to signify that only trademarks are to be
included in the
database.” <u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Section 1. Name; 1.1 Trademark
Clearinghouse; </span><cite><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-style:normal"><a href="https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://gnso.icann.org/en/<wbr>issues/sti/sti-wt-<wbr>recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf</a></span></cite><cite><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></cite><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Second, by these adopted rules, <u>anything
that is not a
trademark cannot be entered into the main TMCH Database, but
may be segregated
into another “ancillary database”: <span> </span><u></u><u></u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">“The TC Service Provider should be required to
maintain a separate
TC database, and may not store any data in the TC database
related to its
provision of ancillary services, if any.” <u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Section 2, Functionality of the Trademark
Clearinghouse,
2.3 Segregation of the Trademark Clearinghouse Database.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Finally, the limitations above were passed
by “Unanimous
consent” of all Stakeholder Groups in the STI, and then adopted
unanimously by
the GNSO Council and ICANN Board. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Accordingly,
the rules
adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board are very clear:
the Trademark
Clearinghouse is for Trademarks.<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Origin
of Problem: <u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">The Applicant Guidebook appears to be the source of
this odd
expansion of subcategories for “marks” being accepted into the
Trademark
Clearinghouse database.<span> </span>In
the Applicant
Guidebook, Module 5, <i>Trademark
Clearinghouse Section,</i> we find: <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Section 3, <i>Criteria
for
Trademark Inclusion in Clearinghouse</i>:<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">“3.2 The standards for inclusion in the
Clearinghouse are: <u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><span> </span>3.2.1 [Skipped]<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><span> </span>3.2.2 [Skipped]<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">3.2.3 Any word mark protected by a statute or
treaty in effect at
the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for
inclusion.<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">3.2.4 Other marks that constitute intellectual
property.”</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb" target="_blank">https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/<wbr>applicants/agb</a>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">It is not clear that 3.2.3 is only for trademarks
(and clearly
Deloitte does not interpret it so) or what 3.2.4 means or
includes. In all
events, neither of two subcategories were discussed or approved
by the GNSO
Council and ICANN Board. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Further, under the express rules adopted, any
results of 3.2.3 and
3.2.4 that are not trademarks would have to be entered into a <b>different database, not
the main Trademark
Clearinghouse database used for Community-Approved RPMs</b>
(per STI
Recommendations, Section 2, Functionality of the Trademark
Clearinghouse, 2.3
Segregation of the Trademark Clearinghouse Database above). <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Overall, we know that at least 75 terms have been
approved by
Deloitte under 3.2.3 without regard to their trademark status
and are currently
in the TMCH Database. <span> </span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Harm:<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">The TMCH Database is growing beyond the rules
established and set by
the GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Community. This deeply
harms the
Multistakeholder Process. As discussed extensively on the RPM
PDP WG list, the
original GNSO committees worked long and hard and carefully
balanced the rights
of those seeking trademark protection and those seeking to
register domain
names in New gTLDs. Allowing into the Trademark Clearinghouse
new types of entries
is a decision for this Working Group, but not for Deloitte or
ICANN Staff.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Second, these subsections allow a level of
interpretation and
discretion never intended for the Trademark Clearinghouse
Provider. Through
Section 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, Deloitte is engaged in a new function
of discretion,
interpretation and choice – one without rules, guidance and
oversight by ICANN
and ICANN Community. Ultimately, we don’t even understand what
is being
accepted (and Deloitte would not tell us).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Third, these subsections (3.2.2 and 3.2.4) harm all
of those
seeking to register domain names, in good faith for their new
groups,
companies, goods, services, hobbies, speech, research and
education.
Absent a trademark right of precedence, all other domain names
should be open
and available to the world to register. That was the promise of
the New gTLD
Program. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Action:
</span></i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The WG has an
oversight
obligation to ensure the rules adopted by the Community are
followed. We can ensure
that subcategories 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 are allowed <b>only to the extent they are registered trademarks</b>.
Alternatively,
the Working Group <b>by
consensus</b> may
CHANGE the rules and present to the GNSO Council and the ICANN
Board a new set
of standards by which Deloitte (or any future TMCH provider) may
review and
accept these subcategories of marks. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>