<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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: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;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Claudio—<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This message reflects the views of the co-chairs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Brian<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Philip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kathy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Philip S. Corwin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy Counsel<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign, Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">12061 Bluemont Way<br>
Reston, VA 20190<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">703-948-4648/Direct<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> <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 <kathy@kathykleiman.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kathy, all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Can someone kindly shed some light on this disparity in treatment between the way we are approaching question 7 and question 8? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks!<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Claudio<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">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>All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Q#8:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>3.2 The standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse are: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">3.2.1 Nationally or regionally registered word marks from all jurisdictions.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">3.2.2 Any word mark that has been validated through a court of law or other judicial proceeding.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><s>3.2.4 Other marks that constitute intellectual property.
</s>[see below]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">3.2.5 Protections afforded to trademark registrations do not extend to applications for registrations, marks.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">[1] <i>By "trademarks," the WG means "trademarks, service marks, certification marks and collective marks."</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>(Appropriate corresponding changes will be percolated across the <i>Trademark Clearinghouse</i> Applicant Guidebook)
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>-----------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best, Kathy <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>