[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

Thu Apr 13 15:16:29 UTC 2017

Ok. I appreciate your response. I think it's very helpful to
understand the concerns as clearly as possible, so I guess my question
would be how sensitive that information is if we're talking about one
brand SMEs. I can understand if we're talking about a major company
with lots of different brands, looking at their prioritization would
give an insight into their future strategies, but if there's only one
brand, there's not much of a marketing insight you could get from
seeing what they've taken, is there?

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be> wrote:
> Thanks Michael - but that's not really a flyer for TMs that are easily recognisable (and thus attributable to an owner). Worse, what about the one-brand SME?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Karanicolas [mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com]
> Sent: jeudi 13 avril 2017 16:52
> To: Marie Pattullo
> Cc: Paul Keating; Brian Scarpelli; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today
>
> Hi - I understand the objection. So what if the identity of the registering party was scrubbed from the data before it was delivered?
> That way, readers wouldn't be able to tie the registrations to any broader brand strategy, because they wouldn't be able to develop a comprehensive list of brands registered by any particular party. All you would see is a list of what's been taken.
>
> Would that resolve the concern about confidentiality?
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be> wrote:
>> Brand holders have repeatedly explained why the data in the TMCH is
>> confidential, Paul. Access to that data won’t show you the “abuse” you
>> believe you may find: it will simply show you a list of the marks that
>> a brand owner has paid to record in the TMCH. Why do you want to know
>> that, please? That list doesn’t show you any form of abusive, or
>> benign, behaviour – it’s a list.
>>
>>
>>
>> The (small) Sunrise take-up provides no evidence of mass abusive
>> registration. So that leaves “abuse” in the Claims Notices, but those
>> Notices don’t allow the TM owner to be abusive either – they’re just a
>> heads up.
>>
>>
>>
>> So with respect, I simply don’t understand your repeated claims that
>> you need access to this data to find “abuse”. In cases where there are
>> questionable base marks, there are cancellation proceedings before IPOs.
>> There are means to dispute a Sunrise allocation. Receiving a Claims
>> Notice doesn’t stop you registering a DN. And taking a case in bad
>> faith, or against bad faith, is always an option.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is of course your right to believe that you should have access to
>> the commercial strategy of brand holders; you’ll forgive me for
>> believing the contrary.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Marie
>>
>>
>>
>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
>> On Behalf Of Paul Keating
>> Sent: jeudi 13 avril 2017 16:22
>> To: Brian Scarpelli
>>
>>
>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the
>> Working Group call held earlier today
>>
>>
>>
>> George and Brian,
>>
>>
>>
>> You seem to have an agenda.   And thou protest too much.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our collective task is to investigate and make recommendations. It
>> isn't possible to do either if denied access to I formation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding TMCH I only ask for a list of the mark's under registration.
>> This is to see IF there has been abuse and IF SO then whether it
>> reaches to the level of requiring corrective action.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not certain if anything beyond the mark's is necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>> I repeatedly hear that the TMCH is confidential. I have not seen
>> anything to support such a claim.  The terms provided by George showed
>> no basis for a privacy expectation.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the list of the mark's in the TMCH database shows no abuse I will
>> join the obvious majority to recommend no corrective action. For you
>> surely cannot believe that this group would support changes in the
>> absence of abuse.
>>
>>
>>
>> Conversely if abuse is shown and the abuse is serious enough to
>> warrant corrective action I trust you will join with me I crafting an
>> appropriate solution.
>>
>>
>>
>> What is required is a list of marks and the basis for submission. I am
>> not at all sure how the registrant ID would be relevant. Hence I have
>> no understanding how it could be confidential.  Thus I have no idea
>> what you are trying so hard to hide. But will tell you that the harder
>> you try the more I will be interested in investigating.
>>
>>
>>
>> Whois is a completely separate issue with vastly different privacy concerns.
>> I am happy to address the WHOIS and the TMCH issues within their
>> respective WGs.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Paul Keating, Esq.
>>
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2017, at 1:26 PM, Brian Scarpelli
>> <BScarpelli at actonline.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> +1, I also agree.
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian Scarpelli
>> Senior Policy Counsel
>> 517-507-1446 | bscarpelli at actonline.org ACT | The App Association
>>
>>
>>
>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
>> On Behalf Of Scott Austin
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:46 PM
>> To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>; Paul Keating
>> <paul at law.es>
>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working
>> Group call held earlier today
>>
>>
>>
>> +1 Georges. Opacity, well put. Transparency as subterfuge, what a concept.
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> From: "Nahitchevansky, Georges" <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>
>> Date: Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 8:08 AM
>> To: Paul Keating <paul at law.es>
>> CC: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working
>> Group call held earlier today
>>
>> Actually it touches on the point here. If you are going to make various
>> arguments of alleged abuse in support of claimed transparency, then it would
>> it is relevant to know whether you are supporting a lack of transparency in
>> the whois side of things where abuse has been rampant. While the TMCH and
>> Whois are different animals a number of the arguments being made here to
>> support transparency have actually been mirrored in the other context and
>> rejected by those seeking opacity.  And one major difference between ‎the
>> two situations is that there is widespread evidence of abuse of the whois
>> system whereas here in the TMCH context you do not have evidence of a
>> widespread abuse of the TMCH by brand owners. Nevertheless, you and others
>> persist on wanting to conduct a fishing expedition under the guise of so
>> called "transparency" to try and find some alleged widespread harm that
>> simply does not exist. To many folks on the other side of the aisle, it
>> appears that this is not about transparency but more about some effort to
>> gut existing protections and to obtain the release of confidential
>> information of brand owners as to what they did or did not register.
>> Perhaps this may not be the intent, but we all know that once that
>> information is out the gaming will really begin. ‎Again, perhaps there are
>> tweeks that could be made to improve the current system, but there is no
>> real basis for undertaking the broad review that is being sought and
>> certainly not for undoing the entire existing system.
>>
>> ‎
>>   Original Message
>> From: Paul Keating
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 6:33 PM
>> To: Nahitchevansky, Georges
>> Cc: J. Scott Evans; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: Action Items,      Slides and Notes from the Working Group call
>> held earlier today
>>
>> George,
>>
>> You can always quote me. I say what I have said. I only ask that you quote
>> me accurately. The discussion here is the TMCH database. Please let's stay
>> on topic.
>>
>> Happy to discuss Whois separately.
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>> On 12 Apr 2017, at 00:18, Nahitchevansky, Georges
>>> <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can I quote you in this on having an open and robust whois so we can have
>>> across the board actual and real information on the parties registering
>>> domain names and know who the bad actors are
>>>
>>> Georges Nahitchevansky
>>> Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
>>> The Grace Building | 1114 Avenue of the Americas | New York, NY 10036-7703
>>> office 212 775 8720 | fax 212 775 8820
>>> ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com |
>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://www.kilpatricktownsend.com&c=E,1,kgJUlMQkaC7zcn6Rs66Ti2At9D_Ui1TtDyL3pG1zG__KTS7tVBHLK8dmlR-Js0Y7uaJnKxz_Zkc5RY8ItO8pCAXh9h_yFUPJgf2JB9nUCVpnQzK0&typo=1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Paul Keating
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 5:58 PM
>>> To: J. Scott Evans
>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working
>>> Group call held earlier today
>>>
>>> It says at most which domains it wants pre-emptiness and notice rights
>>> over.
>>>
>>> Hardly a confidential business secret. The information is a public record.
>>> And, After all the Information is instantly public the minute one
>>> pre-emptive sunrise registration is undertaken. The notice right is
>>> completely a non secret.
>>>
>>> And hardly sufficient to use to hide bad actors.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>> On 11 Apr 2017, at 23:18, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg
>>>> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is a big difference from a database that contains all a company’s
>>>> registered marks and one that contains a culling for only those it deems
>>>> most valuable for protection in the DNS. The former is clearly open for the
>>>> public, the later is not.
>>>>
>>>> J. Scott
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> J. Scott Evans
>>>> 408.536.5336 (tel)
>>>> 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
>>>> Director, Associate General Counsel
>>>> 408.709.6162 (cell)
>>>> San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
>>>> Adobe. Make It an Experience.
>>>> jsevans at adobe.com
>>>> www.adobe.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/11/17, 2:03 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Jeremy
>>>> Malcolm" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/4/17 9:43 am, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg wrote:
>>>>> George:
>>>>>
>>>>> We have all followed this string. We understand that you and a few
>>>>> others believe there need to be wholesale changes to the Sunrise mechanism
>>>>> and the TMCH database (or at least the confidentiality of that data).
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Do you have a suggestion for how to improve the Sunrise mechanism?
>>>>> 2. I see very little support for violating the confidentiality
>>>>> provisions of the TMCH contract.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW I am also all for bringing the transparency of the TMCH database
>>>> into line with those of national trademark registries so that its
>>>> secrecy does not facilitate the kinds of abuses that George has
>>>> uncovered. I have been an observer until now but I've just upgraded to
>>>> member and plan to join the call tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>>
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feff.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2528000b02f744c8d69a08d4811e3b81%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636275414221363260&sdata=FLU88IUnUq0DTixWIhDAELHUtjhYZgxqHGr8ihACkQ8%3D&reserved=0
>>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>>>
>>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>>
>>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>>
>>>> Public key:
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F11%2F27%2Fkey_jmalcolm.txt&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2528000b02f744c8d69a08d4811e3b81%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636275414221373268&sdata=GzYW9x04IhxeW3HTyWRedWTpbiQQOrfZfflAKXdh04M%3D&reserved=0
>>>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Confidentiality Notice:
>>> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
>>> meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
>>> 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by
>>> the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may
>>> contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney
>>> work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
>>> copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or
>>> attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us
>>> immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original
>>> transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal
>>> tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is
>>> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
>>> (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
>>> marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
>>> addressed herein.
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>
>>
>>
>> This message contains information which may be confidential and legally
>> privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose
>> to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you
>> have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this
>> message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be
>> used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
> !DSPAM:58ef90bc17161720142306!
>
>
>