<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
<div>+1<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone</div>
<div><br>
On Apr 20, 2017, at 7:24 AM, icannlists <<a href="mailto:icannlists@winston.com">icannlists@winston.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph, li.m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph, div.m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph
{mso-style-name:m_4138471271028168620msolistparagraph;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Normally, I have to pride of authorship, but I do think – in this one case – my proposal accomplishes what Kathy’s does in relationship with GIs, without bringing
in various ancillary issues like Deloitte’s compliance, etc. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 20, 2017 6:48 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Paul Tattersfield <<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation II for Question #8<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have to agree. I believe Paul McGrady submitted a proposal earlier that was based on the language that a "mark" protected by statute or treaty. We know that some GI's are registered marks and others are not. GI's that are registered marks
should be included. GI's that are not, should not.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">I also take exception to all the inflammatory language used in this proposal like "violation". I think the overwhelming evidence is that Deloitte has done a good job in running the TMCH in good faith. While there may be disagreements on
how Deloitte implemented certain recommendations, there certainly is no indication of malice or bad faith so let's please dial back the hyperbole.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">J. Scott<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On Apr 20, 2017, at 2:31 AM, Paul Tattersfield <<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:center">
<b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Recommendation for Question #8: Marks Protected by Statue or Treaty</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">1.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</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;
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">2.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Everyone who sees these rules interprets them differently:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in">o<span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in">o<span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</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
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in">o<span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Still others think it is to protect such as geographical indications.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">3.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">4.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="m4138471271028168620msolistparagraph"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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.”
</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fen%2Fissues%2Fsti%2Fsti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ceed47a23cad441ff0dbc08d487cff97a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636282774700122804&sdata=htHEp4eUTTbKAsTSHKzJtnRnTCnnx1%2F4goKaF6jnXqc%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf</a></span></cite><cite><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
</span></cite><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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”: </u></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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.”
</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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.</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Origin of Problem:
</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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. In the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, <i>
Trademark Clearinghouse Section,</i> we find: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:.5in">
<b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Section 3, <i>Criteria for Trademark Inclusion in Clearinghouse</i>:</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:.5in">
<b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">“3.2 The standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse are:
</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> 3.2.1 [Skipped]</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> 3.2.2 [Skipped]</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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.</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">3.2.4 Other marks that constitute intellectual property.”</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewgtlds.icann.org%2Fen%2Fapplicants%2Fagb&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ceed47a23cad441ff0dbc08d487cff97a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636282774700122804&sdata=%2FYFfXVU8HNuZcpD3A%2Bgn%2F6%2F%2BK13DWvhUlHLzeSZGG64%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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).
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Harm:</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Action:
</span></i><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
_______________________________________________<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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ceed47a23cad441ff0dbc08d487cff97a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636282774700122804&sdata=rq%2FJ3htR6bb2UVFi06iJ2UeGDRH1l9f%2BXj7p9Iy2%2B1c%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ceed47a23cad441ff0dbc08d487cff97a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636282774700122804&sdata=rq%2FJ3htR6bb2UVFi06iJ2UeGDRH1l9f%2BXj7p9Iy2%2B1c%3D&reserved=0">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ceed47a23cad441ff0dbc08d487cff97a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636282774700122804&sdata=rq%2FJ3htR6bb2UVFi06iJ2UeGDRH1l9f%2BXj7p9Iy2%2B1c%3D&reserved=0</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<font color="gray" size="1" face="Arial"><br>
<p></p>
<hr>
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this
message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
<p></p>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>