<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
p
{margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
span.EmailStyle20
{font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal}
.MsoChpDefault
{}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
div.WordSection1
{}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div dir="auto">Thank you Brian for mentioning oriGIn compilation. Unfortunately, as we are preparing for oriGIn biannual meeting next week, I will not be able to join the call. If you need any additional information on the compilation, I would be glad to provide
it by email.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Concerning GIs and the TMCH, for the records, I think any proposal aimed at excluding them does not reflect the reality of IP systems worldwide and does not help legal certainty. As you can see from the compilation, the large majority of countries
in the world provide for independent IP system to protect GIs. The few ones that do not do so, protect GIs via trademarks.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Best,</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Massimo</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature" dir="auto">
<div dir="auto" style="font-size:85%; color:#575757">Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-------- Message d'origine --------</div>
<div>De : "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int> </div>
<div>Date : 18.09.19 12:24 (GMT+01:00) </div>
<div>À : claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com>, John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com>
</div>
<div>Cc : gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org </div>
<div>Objet : Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8 </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">All,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Passing on a link to the “oriGIn Worldwide GIs Compilation” in case of interest to the discussion of an ancillary database:
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a href="https://www.origin-gi.com/i-gi-origin-worldwide-gi-compilation-uk.html">https://www.origin-gi.com/i-gi-origin-worldwide-gi-compilation-uk.html</a>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Brian
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>claudio di gangi<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 18, 2019 12:09 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">John, Paul, Rebecca,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think John’s final paragraph does the trick (and I hope helps clarify my goal/objective here) - on the basis that the other ancillary database is unified and single-sourced. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In other words, those records can be placed in that single separate ancillary database, and new gTLD registries can interact with it as they choose.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course, if some particular registry wants to build something in addition and separate through Deloitte, they should maintain that option. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I just wanted to avoid a scenario when GIs (like the names of famous wines and other well-known goods that are protected in the form of a GI) had to be recorded 25, 50, 100, etc different times and in different places. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Claudio</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:23 PM John McElwaine <<a href="mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com" target="_blank">john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com</a>> wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none; border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt; padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt; margin-left:4.8pt; margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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" style=""> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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" style=""> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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" style=""> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">John</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in; border-color:currentColor currentColor">
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b>From:</b> GNSO-RPM-WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">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">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>>; Corwin, Philip <<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com" target="_blank">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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:
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif; color:black">Rebecca Tushnet</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">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">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><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></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">thanks, Phil. Very helpful as always.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Best regards,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Claudio</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:34 PM Corwin, Philip <<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com" target="_blank">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>> wrote:</span></p>
</div>
<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>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Claudio—</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">This message reflects the views of the co-chairs.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p><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></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p><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></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p><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></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p><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></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p><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></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Regards,</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Brian</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Philip</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Kathy</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Philip S. Corwin</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Policy Counsel</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">VeriSign, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN" style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">12061 Bluemont Way<br>
Reston, VA 20190</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">703-948-4648/Direct</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">571-342-7489/Cell</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p><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 <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">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">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Q#8</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Kathy, all,</span></p>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Thanks!</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Best regards,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Claudio</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black"><br>
<br>
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>> wrote:</span></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></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></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Q#8:</span></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">-----------------</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:black">Best, Kathy
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this
e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>