Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Zak Muscovitch
01:08:57
You know what, the sounds seems clearer on zoom compared to Adobe, for me at least...Hmmmm.
Roger Carney
01:09:25
+1 Zak
Kristine Dorrain
01:09:26
I've heard people say that...
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:46
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.
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:43
Susan: it looks like your video might be on.
Ariel Liang
01:14:51
You are welcome to download the file from the chat and go scroll through document on your own
Kristine Dorrain
01:17:06
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?
Kristine Dorrain
01:17:21
Because that actually sort of answers the stated question.
Ariel Liang
01:17:24
Hands up
Martin Silva Valent
01:17:47
True, will be extra careful with the chat
Kristine Dorrain
01:18:08
I feel like the drafting is in the passive voice which is confusing. but I could be wrong.
Kristine Dorrain
01:18:34
(look at me commenting in passive voice)
Kathy Kleiman
01:19:48
+1 Kristine
Zak Muscovitch
01:19:56
Sounds reasonable to me.
Andrea Glandon
01:21:52
Please make sure you phones and microphones are muted
Rebecca Tushnet
01:22:05
I'd like to get on the queue--I am using my phone.
Susan Payne
01:23:20
Lowering my hand because I was going to say something similar to Kristine, but probably with less clarity
Martin Silva Valent
01:23:28
ok, thnks
Kristine Dorrain
01:23:38
and furthermore, the recommendation section below that further asks for more community inpute
Kristine Dorrain
01:23:48
on when the claims period can be flexible....
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:08
good point!
Zak Muscovitch
01:24:13
yes, good point.
Susan Payne
01:27:01
@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
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:12
Tx Susan -- good to know where the discussion took place!
migraham
01:28:46
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.
Susan Payne
01:29:12
oh no - we have not had the discussion in sunrise
Susan Payne
01:29:35
all I meant was we agreed in this claims sub not to duplicate a discussion which will happen in the sunrise sub
Kristine Dorrain
01:29:35
Yeah, I don't recall either.,
migraham
01:30:27
Kathy: What would you include in "suitable business model"?
migraham
01:31:31
@Kristine -- Agree +1
Kristine Dorrain
01:32:20
Agree Susan.
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:25
hand up
Kristine Dorrain
01:32:29
Thanks for clarifying.
migraham
01:32:49
@Susan -- Agree. C should be clarified that "flexibility" is to enlarge period, not to shorten it or do away with it.
Zak Muscovitch
01:33:18
Re Susan's comment, indeed, what TLD's would be exempt - its a big gap, no?
Kristine Dorrain
01:33:48
@Kathy, and TM owners want claims in perpetuity. I think we left this at the current balance.
migraham
01:33:57
@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.
Kristine Dorrain
01:34:09
I don't think we've seen anything in the data that would insist we alter the careful balance.
Susan Payne
01:34:11
but kathy there were hardly any ROs who answered full stop
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:17
It is the data we have
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:26
We spent a lot of time gathering it.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:34:28
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
Rebecca Tushnet
01:34:52
+1 Kathy on the data collection from various groups, which does point in different directions
migraham
01:34:53
@Kathy -- It is the data we have -- and unfortunately it is insufficient to support such major Answers.
Susan Payne
01:36:12
@Kristine - yes!
Rebecca Tushnet
01:36:29
Raising hand please
migraham
01:37:23
@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.
Kristine Dorrain
01:37:41
I think the data generally supports our current understanding. I don't think any of us was surprised by any of the data.
julie.hedlund
01:39:02
Staff hand up
migraham
01:39:11
@Cyntia -- Great point!
julie.hedlund
01:39:56
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.
julie.hedlund
01:40:58
Cyntia has her hand up
julie.hedlund
01:41:07
@Martin: Cyntia’s hand is up.
migraham
01:41:14
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?
Susan Payne
01:41:26
can you remind what (e) is as we can't scroll please
Susan Payne
01:41:33
or can we scroll?
Kristine Dorrain
01:41:39
) Should the proof of use requirements for Sunrise be extended to include the issuance of TMCH notices
Ariel Liang
01:41:43
Should the proof of use requirements for Sunrise be extended to include the issuance of TMCH notices?
Susan Payne
01:41:49
Thanks!!
Cyntia King
01:41:50
SOrry I thiought I removed the hand.
julie.hedlund
01:42:01
Gremlins Cyntia ;-)
Cyntia King
01:42:20
Gremlins, indeed!
Ariel Liang
01:42:37
hand up
mary.wong
01:44:30
Basically, the document includes potential recs and suggested answers, up to where the Sub Team stopped. Hope that’s helpful.
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:16
Could Staff open Proposal#2? It's not open below.
Ariel Liang
01:46:29
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
migraham
01:46:29
@Kristine -- Agree. We need to make the determination of the proposal -- otherwise why have the subteams?
mary.wong
01:46:31
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.
Susan Payne
01:46:36
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
Ariel Liang
01:46:51
When George submitted this proposal, he said it was related to agreed Sunrise charter question
migraham
01:48:28
@Rebecca -- Disagree as to requirement of Use. Registration creates rights in trademarks in most countries regardless of use.
migraham
01:50:37
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.>
migraham
01:51:37
@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?
Cyntia King
01:53:01
Npt at all
julie.hedlund
01:53:31
@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 Kleiman
01:54:40
Tx Claudio!
migraham
01:54:46
@Kathy -- Could you type in the reference to pages you made earlier -- I believe 10 and 11 -- but of which document?
Greg Shatan
01:54:52
Trademarks are often words. That does not diminish the validity of the trademark in question.
mary.wong
01:55:22
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.
Greg Shatan
01:55:38
Some have advanced the view that there is a Very Big Problem. That does not make it so.
Kathy Kleiman
01:56:10
@Ariel - could you provide the link to Proposal #2. The download knocked me off.
Ariel Liang
01:56:25
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1553614254000&api=v2
migraham
01:56:45
@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.
Ariel Liang
01:57:11
Staff hand up for AOB
Kathy Kleiman
01:58:09
"overdeterence" is an important term.
migraham
01:58:16
@Rebecca -- "Not being a problem" should not be the basis for deciding whether to require additional procedure and cost.
Kathy Kleiman
01:58:45
that's what the evidence showed, and many additional data postings.
migraham
01:59:14
I have not see any evidence of "overdeterence" at all. Please illuminate.
Cyntia King
01:59:24
Sorry, I disagree that the evidence shows the TM is the problem. I believe the wording of the Notice was teh biggest problem.
Susan Payne
01:59:39
+1 Cyntia
claudio digangi
01:59:48
@rebecaa - many non-famous marks are cybersquatter, it is by no means a problem limited to a certain class of marks
Kathy Kleiman
01:59:49
sigh, time delays -- overdeterence is the Analysis Group evidence showed, and many additional data postings.
Kristine Dorrain
01:59:52
+1 Cyntia
Greg Shatan
02:00:00
“Overdeterrence” is a theory, which is not supported by the evidence. We have insufficient evidence to determine whether the deterrence is “over-“ or not.
migraham
02:00:05
@Cyntia -- Agree -- issue is the notice, not the registration of trademark.
Kathy Kleiman
02:00:50
How can the registration of the trademark not be a linked to the cybersquatting issue? They are intricately tied...
Kristine Dorrain
02:00:51
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.
migraham
02:00:57
@Kathy -- Are you harping on the 93% figure? It proves nothing and supports no conclusion whatsoever.
mary.wong
02:01:00
Does anyone have questions?
Greg Shatan
02:01:05
Beyond the wording issue, I do not read the AG report to provide evidence of overdeterrence.
migraham
02:01:51
@Greg -- Agree. The theory of overdeterence is not supported by evidence. The evidence does support the effectiveness of notices, however.
Kathy Kleiman
02:01:55
It's been in virtually every type of evidence.