[PC-NCSG] draft UDRP/RPM Comments - [WITH] Version 6

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi Sam,
Tx you very much, the comments look good!

Re: (p.5) "Should the STI consensus be reversed to allow Trademark 
claims period to be extended beyond ninety days?", my thought was the 
ongoing push of the some stakeholders and the ICANN Staff to extend the 
mandatory Trademark Claims period beyond 90 days. At the time the STI 
adopted this compromise, we (NCSG) argued that Trademark Claims (which I 
will define loosely as a notice from the Trademark Clearinghouse to the 
trademark holder registered within the Trademark Clearinghouse that 
something identical to its trademark has just been registered in a New 
gTLD. We urged a limited Trademark Claims period - a balance between the 
needs of the trademark owner and the rights of the trademark owner -- to 
avoid "chilling effects" to the registrant (the concept Wendy Seltzer 
helped to coin and codify in her/EFF's Chilling Effects Database).

I am still very concerned whether I see ICANN seeking to expand this 
mandatory term. It is one of the changes this Issues Report seeks to 
introduce.

The fact that the Trademark Clearinghouse is doing this voluntarily is 
shocking...
Best,
Kathy

On 11/29/2015 5:41 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> Kathy, [WITH VERSION 6]
>
> Could do the PDF but cannot since I don't know what the "appropriate 
> signature section" is...within the PDF.
>
> I cleaned up two things, removing the redundant (b & (c in the first 
> paragraph, and deleting the remaining comments by Stephanie, since the 
> text accepts the replacement of "light years" with "centuries".
>
> As I understand it, Stephanie's comment with regard to the time period
>
> (p.5) "Should the STI consensus be reversed to allow Trademark claims 
> period to be extended beyond ninety days?"
>
> is with regard to NCSG questioning the following language in the Staff 
> Paper on Rights Protection Mechanisms in the New gTLD Program: Revised 
> Report September 2015 
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en 
> (5.3 Extensions of Trademark Claims Service, page 84). Or is it 
> something more?
>
> "The Trademark Clearinghouse also offers an Ongoing Notifications 
> service at no additional cost that informs the trademark holder 
> whenever someone has activated a domain name in a new gTLD that 
> matches a term that is recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse. When 
> opting in to this service, the trademark holder will receive a notice 
> informing them of the matching domain name, so the trademark holder 
> can determine whether it wishes to take action. This is a 
> non-mandatory service provided following the 90-day Claims Period for 
> each new gTLD whereby trademark holders are notified of potential 
> intellectual property infringement for an indefinite period of time 
> beyond the required 90-day period. Deloitte provides this service to 
> trademark holders and agents for the duration of their trademark 
> record registration into the Trademark"
>
> Sam L.