[gnso-sti] Comments on TC draft

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Overall, a great job Margie.

We still us the term IP Claims instead of TM claims.  In light of our 
changing the Clearing house name to Trademark Clearinghouse, we 
should probably use the term TM Claims or at least include a note 
explaining why we are not...
On page 2, the paragraph starting with "This STI alternative.." gives 
the impression that all RT members were working in complete 
isolation, which is not necessarily the case. I would suggest 
changing "Given the limited amount of time allocated to developing 
the proposal, it was not feasible for the representatives to solicit 
the prior approval of their stakeholder group members." to "Given the 
limited amount of time allocated to developing the proposal, it was 
not feasible for the representatives to solicit the prior approval of 
their stakeholder group members, although some of the representatives 
did significantly discuss issues with parts of their constituency/SG."
2.6 the last phrase "regardless of whether ICANN contracts with more 
than one TC Service Provider." is misleading. Although we definitely 
did say that there must be only one entity for registries to interact 
with, we never discussed the possibility of ICANN contracting with 
multiple TCs. I would use the wording "Registry should only need to 
connect with one centralized database to obtain the information it 
needs to conduct its sunrise processes or IP Claims Services, 
regardless of the details of the TC organization and its contract(s) 
with ICANN."
4.3 In the first sentence, "stings" should be "strings".

5.2 I do not believe that there was unanimous consensus on this. In 
particular, there was strong support for registries NOT being 
required to use non-reviewed (and perhaps poorly reviewed) marks in sunrises.
6.2 I am not sure we agreed that this should require active 
"pre-registration for a future URS" or if this is an automatic 
service once a TM is registered in the TC". I suggest that the 
description should include that "The TM could provide confirmations 
of TM to URS providers for a fee".
8.1 The issue of the language of the IP Claims notice was agreed 
upon, reference never made it into the document. I suggest "The IP 
Claims notice must be preferably be provided in the language used for 
the rest of the interaction with the registrar/registry, but at the 
very least in the most appropriate UN-sponsored language (as 
specified by the prospective registrant or registrar/registry)." As 
an aside, I would assume that there will always be a reference to the 
English language notice is that is the "definitive" one, but I assume 
that this will be covered by staff in the detailed implementation.

Alan