Page History

...

Transcription

Action Items:

1. Sub Team to draft a question(s) that would allow the WG to analyze the proposals during the Trademark Claims Review
2. Sub Team to use the following question as a starting point for discussion: "In light of the evidence of the TM Claims gathered in Questions 1-3 above, how extensive is the need for non-exact matches? What is the proof of harm under the existing system? What unintended consequences might non-exact matches have?  What is the appropriate balance going forward? a. If non-exact matches are not adopted, then no further action is necessary. b. If non-exact matches of some form are adopted, should the marks in the TMCH be used to generate non-exact matches for the purpose of providing a broader range of claims notices?  If so, how should the claims notices be written?"

Notes: 

• Roll call and updates to SOI
  • No Updates
• Complete discussion of data collection topic in relation to the finalized TM Claims charter questions
  • Questions 2.c/d:
    • What data is needed to determine if Trademark Claims should be mandatory for all gTLD registries, or should some registry operators be exempt?
    • Would be good to get anecdotal data from registries and registrars on how valuable the Claims Period has been? - Need to work out an outreach plan to gather data
    • Are there any registry operators for which Claims Notices were not useful? Can anecdotal data be obtained via a survey?
  • Question 3:
    • Sub Team/WG could recommend that registrants be polled during subsequent rounds on their understanding of the Claims Notice
    • Note that surveys of registrants for anecdotal data may prove useful during the registration process during subsequent rounds of new gTLDs
    • During surveys, it is important to survey Internet users who have, or are considering registering domain names in the future
    • Action Item: Staff to edit comment by KD to clarify that notice to potential domain name registrants to replace “average internet users”
    • Surveys should consider testing some potential alternatives, such as other types of notices, especially considering that different match criteria may be added
    • How many registrations triggered Claims Notice, then did not result in a dispute (UDRP/URS) being filed?
    • Surveys should be designed carefully, to be as valid as possible - expertise should be sought to draft any future polls/surveys
    • Should consider what good surveys look like, and also try to avoid what bad surveys may look like as well
    • When addressing abandonment in surveys, need to determine both the reason of abandonment, and the intended purpose in registering the domain
    • Polling should focus on a population that has an interest in registering a domain name, have registered domain names in the past or those who are actively going through the registration process - not random Internet users - one method would be to intercept potential registrants during the process of registration
    • ICANN should hire a professional survey company, and include TM Claims Sub Team members as advisers to whoever conducts/designs the survey – to be included as a note to the broader WG
    • TM Claims Notice should be displayed in the language of the domain name registration agreement - to what extent is this being done by registrars?
    • Co-Chairs have asked staff to gather all suggestions and data in a format that is easy to read and understand - to be circulated to the Sub Team for review and adoption
  • Question 4:
    • This is an ongoing placeholder question – not an original Charter question, was suggested by the Sub Team
    • Suggestion to evaluate the additional proposals on non-exact matches (agenda item 3) in order to identify what data will be required to answer Q4
    • Intent of proposals on accepting non-exact matches is not to include them in the TMCH, but rather that non-exact variations of the registered TMs already in the TMCH would generate a Claims Notice - wording of Q4 should be edited to reflect this
    • Will also need to consider changes to the language in the Claims Notice should they be generated by non-exact matches to entries in the TMCH
    • STRAW PROPOSAL FOR Q4 REWRITE: Should the marks in the TMCH be used to generate non-exact matches for the purpose of providing a broader range of claims notices?  If so, how? And how should the claims notices be written?
    • Sub Team is to use the three proposals on non-exact matches to synthesize questions to be considered by the full WG during its review of the Claims Notice, and suggest data required to answer these questions
• Discuss new Working Group request to consider and (if appropriate) add question on “non-exact matches”
  • Action Item: Sub Team to draft a question(s) that would allow the WG to analyze the proposals during the Trademark Claims Review
  • Action Item: Sub Team to use the following question as a starting point for discussion: "In light of the evidence of the TM Claims gathered in Questions 1-3 above, how extensive is the need for non-exact matches? What is the proof of harm under the existing system? What unintended consequences might non-exact matches have?  What is the appropriate balance going forward? a. If non-exact matches are not adopted, then no further action is necessary. b. If non-exact matches of some form are adopted, should the marks in the TMCH be used to generate non-exact matches for the purpose of providing a broader range of claims notices?  If so, how should the claims notices be written?"