[PC-NCSG] Today in Brussels (remotely)

[Kathryn Kleiman]

Hi All,
Quick update today from our Brussels meeting. First, we were very warmly welcomed, and Fadi was very fair and balanced and did listen to hear all sides.  I am very appreciative and he helped us make our points clear, and others too.

That said, as Robin predicted there are many IPC people - five at my count (although some people came on and off the call), and three BC, with two sharing the time and one on the whole call.   Jeff Eckhaus, Jeff Neumann and Joe Waldron from Demand Media, Neustar and Verisign respectively. Lots of ICANN staff including Kurt and John J.

So the policy issues were separated out. The 8 points of IPC/BC will be discussed at a meeting now set for 11/16 (one day later than originally announced).  Currently set for LA, although that might change.  The question will be whether the proposals are policy - in which case they will be listened to, but routed through the policy process. Or implementation, to be included in current TMCH design.   I have asked Robin whether we might write a second letter setting our views on this issue - point by point.

But the Brussels meeting is implementation. There are still detailed questions that need to be worked out for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). What types of passwords should be issued (by TM holder or by TM entry)?  The ICANN Model or the Neustar/ARI/Registries "alternative model"? (Now leaning towards the latter unless you have any objection.)

We were talking about fields and I fought hard, with IPC support, to ensure that the exact language of the goods/services of the trademark are entered, in addition to the international Class of Goods and Services (which is very broad).  J.Scott picked up in Toronto that this data was not being captured; ICANN staff thought it might be a "free form" entry form. I said it had to be the exact wording of the trademark registration - and everyone ultimately agreed.

What this experience shows me is that we are really the ones looking out for the registrants. We are the only ones really keeping an eye on the TM Claims process, and trying to ensure registrants get accurate and complete TM information to make their decision whether to register or not.

It's not that anyone else is wrong, but their priorities are elsewhere. Registries and registrars are implementing their own systems; ICANN Staff is working with Deloitte and IBM, and IPC/BC is worried about entering potentially hundreds of thousands of TM registrations and then having a Sunrise period that works as promised in the policy.

So we have a critical role, and I am glad we fought for a place in this meeting. And for hopefully equal spots in the 11/16 meeting.

Robin, please feel free to add. Good night
All the best,
Kathy
_____________________________________________________________________________

[cid:image003.png at 01CB79CE.32383780]
Kathy Kleiman
Internet Counsel
1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1100 | Arlington, VA 22209
Tel: 703.812.0476 | Mobile: 703.371.6846
* kleiman at fhhlaw.com<mailto:jazzo at fhhlaw.com> | www.fhhlaw.com<http://www.fhhlaw.com> |www.commlawblog.com<http://www.commlawblog.com>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121101/6fa4803d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5097 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121101/6fa4803d/attachment-0001.png>