2019-04-03 Sub team for Trademark Claims Data Review

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

1. Sub Team members should review the questions, beginning with Question 4 (see attached summary table) and suggest preliminary recommendations.
2. Sub Team members should review individual proposals: See https://community.icann.org/x/R6EWBg (bottom half of the table on the wiki page includes the Trademark Claims related individual proposals)
3. Staff will draft language for preliminary recommendations for which proposals have been discussed (1, 3(a) and (b)).

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs):

2. Development of Preliminary Recommendations – Complete discussion of question 2, begin discussion on remaining questions as time permits -- 3(a), 4, and 5 (questions 1 and 3(b) have been addressed):

-- Will we circle back when we discuss TMCH?  Such as marks that can be recorded in the TMCH?  Issues specific to TMCH will be discussed in the full WG when it reviews the TMCH.

Question 3(a) -- question 3(b) covered in the meeting at ICANN64:

Tentative Preliminary Recommendation:

1. [Griffin Barnett]: My suggested responses/proposal re 3(a): The Trademark Clams Notice is generally meeting its intended purpose of notifying prospective domain name registrants that the applied-for domain name matches at least one trademark in the Trademark Clearinghouse, but could be improved in terms of the specific information it conveys and effectively communicating the meaning and implications of the Notice.  The Working Group recommends that the current version of the Notice template be revised  to improve user-friendliness and provide additional relevant information or links to outside resources to aid prospective registrants in understanding the Notice and its implications.  The WG supports expanding the languages in which all Notices are delivered from English plus the language of the Registration Agreement to also include links to additional translations in all UN6 languages.

2. [Kathy Kleiman]: 3(a)(iii) Translations of the TM Claims must be provided in the language of registration agreement.... and ICANN will provide good translations in major registration agreement language so that registrars can use them easily.

Discussion:

-- Discussed this some before and some agreement that the wording needed to be improved--difficult for a layperson to understand.

-- Disagree: not meeting it's intended purpose.  Chilling effect of translations.

-- How to explain geographical indications?  More work to do.  Translations have been a problem.

-- Should the sub team make recommendations for how or who should revise the notice?

-- Consider how to make the notice streamlined.

-- Should provide guidance on how the notice should be revised.

-- Proposal from George Kirikos to eliminate Trademark Claims.

-- Suggest creating a list of what we want and list of those who might implement -- as implementation guidance.

-- On redrafting the claims notice, that is a job for the IRT but implementation guidance will be welcome.  IRT work is published for public comment.  The IRT is comprised of community members preferably from the PDP WG.  Noting on translations, they are not currently required, but the WG recommendation could be that they be required.

-- Re: individual proposals: best to bring them up as they apply to the charter questions.

Suggest text (from the chat):

Griffin Barnett: My suggested responses/proposal re 3(a): The Trademark Clams Notice is generally meeting its intended purpose of notifying prospective domain name registrants that the applied-for domain name matches at least one trademark in the Trademark Clearinghouse, but could be improved in terms of the specific information it conveys and effectively communicating the meaning and implications of the Notice.  The Working Group recommends that the current version of the Notice template be revised  to improve user-friendliness and provide additional relevant information or links to outside resources to aid prospective registrants in understanding the Notice and its implications.  The WG supports expanding the languages in which all Notices are delivered from English plus the language of the Registration Agreement to also include links to additional translations in all UN6 languages.

Kathy Kleiman: 3(a)(iii) Translations of the TM Claims must be provided in the language of registration agreement.... and ICANN will provide good translations in major registration agreement language so that registrars can use them easily.

3. AOB:

1. Co-Chairs discussed the timeline, which projects this sub team wrapping up the work on 15 May.  Imperative that decisions are made on preliminary recommendations.  Then the WG takes up consideration.

2. Timing of the meetings: Keep at 17:00 UTC.