<html 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-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Seems to me that the majority is attempting to guide the process by not permitting discussin on something that they disagree with .<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com><br><b>Date: </b>Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 5:22 PM<br><b>To: </b>Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><br><b>Cc: </b>"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Kathy, all,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>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 style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>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 style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>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 style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>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 style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>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 style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Thanks!<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Claudio<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><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 style='margin-left:.5in'>All,<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:.5in'>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 style='margin-left:.5in'>Q#8:<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:.5in'>3.2 The standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse are: <o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:1.0in'>3.2.1 Nationally or regionally registered word marks from all jurisdictions. <o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:1.0in'>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:1.0in'>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:1.0in'><s>3.2.4 Other marks that constitute intellectual property. </s>[see below]<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:1.0in'>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:1.0in'>[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:1.0in'>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 style='margin-left:.5in'>(Appropriate corresponding changes will be percolated across the <i>Trademark Clearinghouse</i> Applicant Guidebook) <o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:.5in'>-----------------<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-left:.5in'>Best, Kathy <o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@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.<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>