You know what, the sounds seems clearer on zoom compared to Adobe, for me at least...Hmmmm.
I've heard people say that...
I've had to unmute my cellphone in prior meetings -- by *6, I think. After that, I controlled it by my own phone's mute button.
Susan: it looks like your video might be on.
You are welcome to download the file from the chat and go scroll through document on your own
Is Q2(a) trying to say: We do not recommend changing the policy to mandate an extension, however, ROs should have option to extend the claims period if that supports their business model?
Because that actually sort of answers the stated question.
Martin Silva Valent
True, will be extra careful with the chat
I feel like the drafting is in the passive voice which is confusing. but I could be wrong.
(look at me commenting in passive voice)
Sounds reasonable to me.
Please make sure you phones and microphones are muted
I'd like to get on the queue--I am using my phone.
Lowering my hand because I was going to say something similar to Kristine, but probably with less clarity
Martin Silva Valent
and furthermore, the recommendation section below that further asks for more community inpute
on when the claims period can be flexible....
yes, good point.
@Kathy, ah I understand. and I think we agreed to discuss the choice question in sunrise and not have the same discussion in both subs
Tx Susan -- good to know where the discussion took place!
I do not believe we agreed to this answer in Claims discussion and object strenuously to introducing conclusion from Sunrise group to Claims. This should be discussed further here.
oh no - we have not had the discussion in sunrise
all I meant was we agreed in this claims sub not to duplicate a discussion which will happen in the sunrise sub
Yeah, I don't recall either.,
Kathy: What would you include in "suitable business model"?
@Kristine -- Agree +1
Thanks for clarifying.
@Susan -- Agree. C should be clarified that "flexibility" is to enlarge period, not to shorten it or do away with it.
Re Susan's comment, indeed, what TLD's would be exempt - its a big gap, no?
@Kathy, and TM owners want claims in perpetuity. I think we left this at the current balance.
@Kathy -- The number of respondents was so low that I don't think we can rely upon them. If this is something we think the responses are suggesting, we need to deeper dive.
I don't think we've seen anything in the data that would insist we alter the careful balance.
but kathy there were hardly any ROs who answered full stop
It is the data we have
We spent a lot of time gathering it.
It sounds like part of this is uncertainty about when the suitability would be determined (e.g. initial application to run a new gTLD) and I have to admit I wonder if that's within our remit
+1 Kathy on the data collection from various groups, which does point in different directions
@Kathy -- It is the data we have -- and unfortunately it is insufficient to support such major Answers.
@Kristine - yes!
Raising hand please
@Kristine -- +1 absolutely! As many have pointed out, the RPMs were a careful balance to which no one was entirely happy or disappointed. We should not tip that balance without some clear evidence and support for a preferable alternative. Oh, and any alternative should be balanced with any opposing or divergent opinions/concerns. I think Kristine has made the best points here.
I think the data generally supports our current understanding. I don't think any of us was surprised by any of the data.
Staff hand up
@Cyntia -- Great point!
Hand down — my suggestion was to move to 2(e) and then to the recommendation — noting that staff will open an email thread for further discussion.
Cyntia has her hand up
@Martin: Cyntia’s hand is up.
I think we all know the positions of various stakeholders. But supporting those is not the charter of this PDP -- 1) Are the RPMs working as intended (with all their potential faults)? and 2) Are there improvements we would propose based on data and experience?
can you remind what (e) is as we can't scroll please
or can we scroll?
) Should the proof of use requirements for Sunrise be extended to include the issuance of TMCH notices
Should the proof of use requirements for Sunrise be extended to include the issuance of TMCH notices?
SOrry I thiought I removed the hand.
Gremlins Cyntia ;-)
Basically, the document includes potential recs and suggested answers, up to where the Sub Team stopped. Hope that’s helpful.
Could Staff open Proposal#2? It's not open below.
Staff wasn’t sure whether proposal #2 is actually related to this charter question, as when George mentioned it, he did not specify exactly which proposal he was referring to. Hence we put a “?” next to the proposal number
@Kristine -- Agree. We need to make the determination of the proposal -- otherwise why have the subteams?
Correct - staff only inserted what was said and suggested. Most of the “editing” we did was to clean up grammar and, for the draft recs, to place the suggestions into “recommendation-like” language.
oh, me neither, I don't think we should send to full WG to decide. Well full WG gets to approve all of our work, but we have to come up with our own recommendation to send to the full WG
When George submitted this proposal, he said it was related to agreed Sunrise charter question
@Rebecca -- Disagree as to requirement of Use. Registration creates rights in trademarks in most countries regardless of use.
Comment <I believe the question whether to require evidence of use may be premature. Revision of the Notice should include consideration of the purpose of the Notice.>
@Rebecca and Kathy: If there were a proof of use requirement, how often would this have to be affirmed? Also, would this place additional burdens on any party -- TM owner, Registrar, TMCH -- that could have a financial/effort effect?
Npt at all
@All: Staff will be opening an email thread on this question and related proposals for Sub Team members to continue to provide edits to the recommendations and answers after this call.
@Kathy -- Could you type in the reference to pages you made earlier -- I believe 10 and 11 -- but of which document?
Trademarks are often words. That does not diminish the validity of the trademark in question.
Re Claudio’s comments - the Working Group wiki has the Explanatory Memo that was published when the “proof of use” requirement was first introduced into the AGB. We can circulate the link if that will be helpful.
Some have advanced the view that there is a Very Big Problem. That does not make it so.
@Ariel - could you provide the link to Proposal #2. The download knocked me off.
@Cyntia -- Agree totally! "Courtesy notification" to enable applicants to determine whether to continue expending time/effort/money on domain name application in light of information they can research regarding TM registration.
Staff hand up for AOB
"overdeterence" is an important term.
@Rebecca -- "Not being a problem" should not be the basis for deciding whether to require additional procedure and cost.
that's what the evidence showed, and many additional data postings.
I have not see any evidence of "overdeterence" at all. Please illuminate.
Sorry, I disagree that the evidence shows the TM is the problem. I believe the wording of the Notice was teh biggest problem.
@rebecaa - many non-famous marks are cybersquatter, it is by no means a problem limited to a certain class of marks
sigh, time delays -- overdeterence is the Analysis Group evidence showed, and many additional data postings.
“Overdeterrence” is a theory, which is not supported by the evidence. We have insufficient evidence to determine whether the deterrence is “over-“ or not.
@Cyntia -- Agree -- issue is the notice, not the registration of trademark.
How can the registration of the trademark not be a linked to the cybersquatting issue? They are intricately tied...
I mean, I do think there are too many speed limit signs...perhaps fewer of them would make me more comfortable with my decision to speed.
@Kathy -- Are you harping on the 93% figure? It proves nothing and supports no conclusion whatsoever.
Does anyone have questions?
Beyond the wording issue, I do not read the AG report to provide evidence of overdeterrence.
@Greg -- Agree. The theory of overdeterence is not supported by evidence. The evidence does support the effectiveness of notices, however.
It's been in virtually every type of evidence.