[GNSO-RPM-WG] Simplified language to bring together individual TMCH #4 & #5 proposals

[Paul Keating]

Paul,

I am still confused about the application of 3.2.4 and my confusion continues with the addition of 3.2.9.

Can someone please explain the following:


  1.  Reason for having 3.2.4 at all?
  2.  Reason for the “ancillary database”

Many thanks,

Paul Keating

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 1:24 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Simplified language to bring together individual TMCH #4 & #5 proposals

Hi All, Please see below improved wording for 3.2.7 bringing together GAC advice and Mary’s / Staff observations and new clauses 3.2.8 & 3.2.9 clarifying working group member’s policy intentions. Best regards, Paul


3.2.7     Word marks here include service marks, collective marks, certification marks and word marks protected by statute or treaty.

3.2.8     Sunrise and Claims services available through the TMCH are limited only to word marks under sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 (as further limited by sections 3.2.5 and 3.2.6).

3.2.9     Nothing in section 3.2 shall exclude the TMCH provider and registry operators from offering additional voluntary services to mark holders (e.g. via ancillary databases). Marks under section 3.2.4 must be held in an ancillary database.



Implementation of Consensus Policy for the Protection of Red Cross & Red Crescent Identifiers
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-02-18-en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200730/d5d263bd/attachment.html>