<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Claudio and All,</p>
<p>For those who may not be able to follow all of the messages,
could you send a full set of what you are thinking of for new
language/Q#8? At least two Pauls have commented, so I am not sure
what you are referencing. Having it all in one place would be
useful.<br>
</p>
<p>Tx, Kathy<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><<Rebecca, all,</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFbYrLQ2mef8vVfLgUo6Fd4xvVAyMA8vAH3nfsnGMhHUM+92uw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I support John's proposal below as the simplest
approach, with Paul's language about 3.2.4 being the
qualifying text for the inclusion of GIs, along with a
provision this IP database will be centralized for all
new gTLD registries. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rebecca - you asked about the supporting rationale
in a recent note, so I would like to address your
question. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The purpose is to avoid creating a scenario of
having 300 (or pick some number) of ancillary
databases, each requiring separate submissions and
validations. Again, I say this because Mary
confirmed that currently the ancillary database
concept is registry-specific. The main TMCH is not
registry-specific, all new gTLD registries connect
to the database in a unified manner.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For the sake of providing examples, <.tea>
launches as a new gTLD in the next round; that
registry will need to expend time and resources to
collaborate with Deloitte to establish a new ancillary
database, and the regional authority/producers of
DARJEELING TEA, (under the current model) would be
required to submit the GI registration to the
ancillary database of <.tea> and have it
validated at that time.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In the same round, <.चाय> launches ("tea" in
the Hindi script - a language spoken in India, as an
IDN), the current model requires this same (or
different) registry operator to create another new
ancillary database, with new submissions of
registrations, additional validations, etc.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><.drinks>, <.beverages>, <.web>,
<.internet>, etc.. the list goes on and on, for
every new gTLD there has to be separate ancillary
databases. Each registry and registrar will then have
to allocate resources to promote the
registry-specific database to IP owners around the
world, and connect to the database from a technical
level. I can only imagine the confusion and
unnecessary costs that this approach would impose on
contracted parties and the public.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It would also defeat the purpose and benefit of a
having a centralized, unified system that
simplifies recordation and validation from both an
administrative and technical basis for all parties.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The Limited Registration Period is an existing RPM
that functions similar to Sunrise, but takes place
after the Sunrise Period, during which time these
3.2.4. marks can be protected. Since it is already
permitted, I propose that we specify there is
a voluntary option for a IP Claims notice for these
3.2.4 marks (identical to the TM Claims notice, i.e.
using the same language). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>These are completely voluntary RPMs for contracted
parties - especially, for those that operate in
jurisdictions where GIs are protected under local
laws, and/or for those which decide to take
proactive measures to prevent abusive registrations in
their TLD(s) to have a safe namespace for their users.
Since registries are already allowed to
create voluntary RPMs, the proposal is based on
improving things from a technical and administrative
basis, in a manner that is fully consistent with the
law, and with the overall goal of protecting consumers
and promoting trust in new gTLDs.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Finally, as Brian noted there is an existing
database of GIs, managed by OriGin, which Deloitte/IBM
can interface with to help simplify the process, which
is an idea we can include for public comment in
association with the main recommendation. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>All we need to do is agree that this approach makes
sense from a policy perspective, and the IRT that
follows this PDP can develop the appropriate
implementation procedures to put everything into
place.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please let me know of any questions.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div>Claudio</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_attr" dir="ltr">On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:23
PM John McElwaine <<a
href="mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287WordSection1">
<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”. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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>.”
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">John</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium
medium;border-style:solid none
none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentColor
currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> GNSO-RPM-WG <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>>;
Corwin, Philip <<a
href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="color:red;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">◄External
Email►</span></strong><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">
- From:
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-size:12pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-size:12pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_7813378371380022287Signature">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Rebecca
Tushnet</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Frank
Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law,
Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">
<hr width="98%" size="2" align="center">
</span></div>
<div id="gmail-m_7813378371380022287divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From:</span></b><span
style="color:black"> GNSO-RPM-WG <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
on behalf of claudio di gangi <<a
href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:38 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Corwin, Philip <<a
href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8</span><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">thanks,
Phil. Very helpful as always.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">3)
the protection of GIs are NOT mandatory for
any new gTLD registry
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Hope
this helps clarify status, and thanks for
everyone's ongoing contributions.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Best
regards,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Claudio</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">On
Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:34 PM Corwin, Philip
<<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>>
wrote:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium
1pt;border-style:none none none
solid;border-color:currentColor currentColor
currentColor rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in
6pt;margin-right:0in;margin-left:4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Claudio—</span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">This
message reflects the views of the
co-chairs.</span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Regards,</span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Brian</span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Philip</span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Kathy</span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Philip
S. Corwin</span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Policy
Counsel</span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">VeriSign,
Inc.</span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"
lang="EN">12061 Bluemont Way<br>
Reston, VA 20190</span><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">703-948-4648/Direct</span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">571-342-7489/Cell</span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><i><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">"Luck
is the residue of design" -- Branch
Rickey</span></i><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><b><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">From:</span></b><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">
GNSO-RPM-WG <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<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 <<a
href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re:
[GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8</span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Kathy,
all,</span></p>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Can
someone kindly shed some light on this
disparity in treatment between the way
we are approaching question 7 and
question 8? </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Thanks!</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Best
regards,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Claudio</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_7813378371380022287xmsonormal"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><br>
<br>
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, Kathy
Kleiman <<a
href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>>
wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium
medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none
none solid;border-color:currentColor
currentColor currentColor
rgb(204,204,204);margin:5pt 0in 5pt
4.8pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt">
<div>
<p><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">All,</span></p>
<p><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
<p><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Q#8:</span></p>
<p><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">3.2
The standards for inclusion in the
Clearinghouse are:
</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">3.2.1
Nationally or regionally registered
word marks from all jurisdictions.
</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">3.2.2
Any word mark that has been
validated through a court of law or
other judicial proceeding.
</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in"><s><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">3.2.4
Other marks that constitute
intellectual property.
</span></s><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">[see
below]</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">3.2.5
Protections afforded to trademark
registrations do not extend to
applications for registrations,
marks.</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">[1]
<i>By "trademarks," the WG means
"trademarks, service marks,
certification marks and collective
marks."</i></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in"><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">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></p>
<p><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">(Appropriate
corresponding changes will be
percolated across the
<i>Trademark Clearinghouse</i>
Applicant Guidebook) </span></p>
<p><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">-----------------</span></p>
<p><span
style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Best,
Kathy
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<p 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. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org">GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a>
_______________________________________________
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 (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>