The Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Trademark Claims Data Review is scheduled on Wednesday, 15 May 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. 

10:00 PDT, 13:00 EDT, 19:00 Paris CEST, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Thursday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Thursday) 03:00 Melbourne AEST

For other times:  https://tinyurl.com/y47md8rw

PROPOSED AGENDA

  1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs)
  2. Review timeline/work plan
  3. Development of Preliminary Recommendations:
    1. Discuss agreed Trademark Claims Charter Question 5
    2. (If time permits) Discuss Individual Proposal #11
  4. AOB

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Resource

Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) contains draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals in relation to the Agreed Charter Questions:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515784000&api=v2

  • Q1: pp.3-6
  • Q2: pp.6-12
  • Q3: pp.12-16
  • Q4: pp.16-20
  • Q5: pp.20-22

Relevant to the Agreed Trademark Claims Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Trademark Claims Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team in the homework assignment:

RECORDINGS

Audio

Zoom recording

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

PARTICIPATION

Attendance & Zoom chat

Apologies: Michael Graham

Notes/ Action Items

Discussion Threads: Staff will:

  • Close on 15 May:
    • Q1 (including Proposals #5 & #6)
    • Q3
  • Open until 22 May:
    • Q4 (extension granted)
  • Open until 29 May:
    • Q2 (including Proposals #1 & #12) (extension granted)
    • Q5

Homework: Sub Team members will:

  1. Provide input to Discussion Thread for Agreed Trademark Claims Charter Question 2 (including Proposals #1 & #12), Question 4, Question 5
  2. Review the Status Check document, in conjunction with the latest Summary Table

Q1, Proposal 6: Staff is checking with ICANN Org

 

Brief Notes:

 

  1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.


2. Development of Preliminary Recommendations:


a. Discuss Trademark Claims Charter Question 5

-- Relates to the answer to question 2: Q2(c): Should the Claims period be mandatory? Proposed Answer: There should be a mandatory Claims Period. However, registries should have a certain degree of flexibility to create a suitable business model in providing  the Claims Service, provided this does not involve shortening the mandatory Claims Period.

-- Should remain a mandatory minimum floor of 90 day period, with the possibility for voluntary extensions by registries.

-- We have not discussed whether it should be either Claims or Sunrise.

-- In talking about question 2 -- there might be some TLDs where the TM Claims doesn’t serve a purpose.

-- This talks about whether there could be different times, thought we had agreed that we wouldn’t be removing the allowance that any registry could run something other than the minimum.

-- Lowest common denominator: where there is a Claims period, the policy should require 90 days; that's it.  Doesn’t seem to be support for anything beyond that.

-- The Sunrise Sub Team has not discussed the issue of whether Sunrise should be mandatory.

-- If there is a TM Claims period then is should be a minimum of 90 days.

-- .brands may not have a Claims period (as it has no need).

-- Should be 90 days with an exception for those TLDs that do not allow registrations from the general public.  It is also possible that “highly regulated” LTDs like .bank or .pharmacy might fall into this category.  Could ask the question in public comment -- are there other categories to which this exception would apply or where there could be gaming.

-- Not sure that the “highly regulated” TLDs should be exempt from Claims.


b. Discuss Individual Proposal #11

-- Oppose the idea of a PICDRP.

-- Could use other mechanisms -- PDDRP.


  • No labels