The call for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Trademark Claims is scheduled for Friday, 05 May 2017 at 16:00UTC for 60 minute duration.

09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 17:00 London 18:00 CET

For other times:http://tinyurl.com/lclnuaa

PROPOSED AGENDA: 

1. Discuss Google Doc revisions
2. Discuss Work Plan

Documents:

  1. Trademark Claims Charter Questions - Updated Simplified Table
  2. Draft Updated Workplan - 2 May 2017

Trademark Claims Charter Questions - Updated Simplified Table (Google Doc): https://docs.google.com/document/d/13u5h6Wh6QUqW0vzT5q0zCTEmjMQ8_iCat6ZehLHQC7Q/edit

Apology:  J Scott Evans, Susan Payne 

Mp3

Adobe Connect Recording

AC Chat

Attendance

Transcription

Action Items:

  1. Staff to change wording of question 2 from “Is the Trademark Claims service having any unintended consequences, such as a “chilling effect” on good-faith registrations” to “Is the Trademark Claims service having any unintended consequences, such as deterring good-faith registrations”
  2. Sub Team Co-Chairs, with assistance from staff, to draft a new question or possibly revise existing questions - ask how the Claims notification might be edited, or a potential requirement of a second Claims notice targeting registration attempts of non-exact matches
  3. Sub Team Co-Chairs, with assistance of staff, to draft a question enquiring to what extent translations of the Claims notification are effective and reaching the right audience
  4. Staff to delete Revised Question 2 “Should the Trademark Claims period be extended beyond ninety (90) days?”, as it is now included in the sub-questions of the updated questions 1 and 2
  5. Staff to redraft updated questions 1 and 2 taking into consideration proposed reordering of questions as follows: Updated Question 1 then Updated Question 2, followed by Updated Questions 1a/2a, then finally Updated Updated Questions 1a/2a i --> iv
  6. Staff to add a question to the next Sub Team agenda: Should the Sub Team ask the Working Group to conduct an initial analysis of any data gathered as part of its task, before the broader Working Group considers this data?

Notes:

  1. Question 1:
    • No comments from Sub Team members - assumption that updated questions accurately reflect what is in the revised charter questions
  2. Question 2:
    • Objective of rewording of question 2 is to avoid inflammatory language that may be biased or suggestive of a specific answer
    • From AC Chat: what about "such as deterring good faith registrations" rather than "such as a chilling effect"? - Agreement on this suggested rewording (ACTION ITEM: Staff to make this change)
  3. Question 3:
    • Is the assumption that the intended purpose of the Claims notice is to deter bad-faith registrations?
    • Another purpose would be to provide awareness to potential good-faith registrants, when attempting to register a domain name that Trademark owners may have a right to – registrant should be made aware of the potential issues behind the attempted registration, in order to determine whether to proceed with the registration
    • Another question might be needed to revise the existing language in the current Claims notice to include potential non-exact matches to the Trademark, or possibly a second Claims notice specific to non-exact matches - depending on whether the Working Group decides to include Trademark variations in the TMCH
    • Current Claims notice only covers exact matches
    • ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs, with assistance from Staff, to draft a new question or possibly revise existing questions - ask how the Claims notice might be edited, or a potential requirement of a second Claims notice targeting registration attempts of non-exact matches
    • Question on whether translated Claims notifications are effective and reaching the right audience (ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs, with assistance from staff, will draft a question to address this)
    • Revised Question 2 is now included in the updated sub questions making it redundant, so can be deleted
      (ACTION ITEM: Staff to delete the Revised Question 2)
    • Possible to reorder questions, so that questions on duration of the Claims period are addressed after 1a and 2a are answered, so that WG determines answers to questions on both intended effects and unintended consequences before addressing the issue of the length of the Claims period (ACTION ITEM to reorder this)
    • From AC Chat: Proposal:  Q1, then Q2, then (a) and (i0)-(iv)
    • From AC Chat: "In light of the results... Should the Claims Period be extended... or shortened?..."
    • From the AC Chat: I think First step is: What information do we need to answer these questions.  Second step: Answer the questions Third step: How do we think "issues" should be addressed?
    • Note bifurcation of intended effect (1) deterring bad-faith registration (2) Raising awareness for potential good-faith registrants
    • Possible sources of data: INTA survey (summary or entire report should be available by 10 May), CCT RT, Analysis Group Revised Report
    • From AC Chat: @Rebecca, once the Sub Teams are done and we can see all the data requests, staff will follow up with the co-chairs and the WG on whether (and on which requests) to proceed with a request to the GNSO Council to get budget allocation from ICANN for studies.
    • From AC Chat: Analysis Group, URS, Anecdotal evidence registries, registrars, registrants
    • Table question on whether the Sub Team should ask the WG to conduct an initial analysis of any data gathered as part of its task, before the broader WG considers this data
      (ACTION ITEM: add to agenda of next week's call).
  • No labels