<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
Again, I’m concerned that doesn’t explain what’s gone wrong, and what should be excluded. Moreover, Deloitte is using “statute/treaty,” not “other IP,” as its justification for including GIs, so your proposed change will not exclude GIs unless it adds material
from other proposals. <br>
<br>
<div id="AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">
<div>Rebecca Tushnet</div>
<div>Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
On Sep 17, 2019, at 6:00 PM, John McElwaine <<a href="mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com">john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-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.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.xmsonormal, li.xmsonormal, div.xmsonormal
{mso-style-name:x_msonormal;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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">We could have been provided some inaccurate or combined data, but agreed if GIs are commingled in the TMCH that should not be happening.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To your other point: … a simple solution is that we recommend “other marks that constitute intellectual property” currently in the Trademark Clearinghouse,
<u>and accepted in the future,</u> must be placed into a separate ancillary database by the operator and not in the Trademark Clearinghouse.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Tushnet, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 17, 2019 5:37 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> John McElwaine <<a href="mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com">john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>>; Corwin, Philip <<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I understand your point and am open to going in that direction, but does your proposal make it clear that Deloitte is currently not complying with the provisions you set out and must change its practices? Deloitte
after all had the AGB to read too. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rebecca Tushnet<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On Sep 17, 2019, at 5:24 PM, John McElwaine <<a href="mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com">john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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”. <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 <u>any data used for those services are kept separate from the Clearinghouse database</u>.”
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">John<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> GNSO-RPM-WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Tushnet, Rebecca<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:24 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>>; Corwin, Philip <<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com">pcorwin@verisign.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] Q#8<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:red">◄External Email►</span></strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> - From:
</span><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">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.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Rebecca Tushnet</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">
<hr size="2" width="98%" align="center">
</span></div>
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From:</span></b><span style="color:black"> GNSO-RPM-WG <</span><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><span style="color:black">> on behalf of claudio di gangi <</span><a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a><span style="color:black">><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:38 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Corwin, Philip <</span><a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com">pcorwin@verisign.com</a><span style="color:black">><br>
<b>Cc:</b> </span><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><span style="color:black"> <</span><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><span style="color:black">><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">thanks, Phil. Very helpful as always.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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);</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">3) the protection of GIs are NOT mandatory for any new gTLD registry
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Hope this helps clarify status, and thanks for everyone's ongoing contributions.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Claudio</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:34 PM Corwin, Philip <</span><a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">pcorwin@verisign.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">>
wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Claudio—</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">This message reflects the views of the co-chairs.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Q8 and all of its related proposals were extensively discussed on the September 4<sup>th</sup> 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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Brian</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Philip</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Kathy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Philip S. Corwin</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Policy Counsel</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">VeriSign, Inc.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">12061 Bluemont Way<br>
Reston, VA 20190</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">703-948-4648/Direct</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">571-342-7489/Cell</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> GNSO-RPM-WG <</span><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>claudio di gangi<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 17, 2019 11:22 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Kathy Kleiman <</span><a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">kathy@kathykleiman.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">><br>
<b>Cc:</b> </span><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Kathy, all,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Can someone kindly shed some light on this disparity in treatment between the way we are approaching question 7 and question 8? </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Thanks!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Claudio</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
<br>
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, Kathy Kleiman <</span><a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">kathy@kathykleiman.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">>
wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;border-color:currentColor currentColor currentColor rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">All,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Q#8:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">3.2 The standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse are:
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">3.2.1 Nationally or regionally registered word marks from all jurisdictions.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">3.2.2 Any word mark that has been validated through a court of law or other judicial proceeding.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">3.2.3 Any word marks specified in and protected by a statute or treaty
<i>as trademarks </i>[1]<i> </i>in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><s><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">3.2.4 Other marks that constitute intellectual property.
</span></s><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">[see below]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">3.2.5 Protections afforded to trademark registrations do not extend to applications for registrations, marks.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">[1]
<i>By "trademarks," the WG means "trademarks, service marks, certification marks and collective marks."</i></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">(Appropriate corresponding changes will be percolated across the
<i>Trademark Clearinghouse</i> Applicant Guidebook) </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-----------------</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Best, Kathy
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:7.5pt">Confidentiality Notice <br>
<br>
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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>