[PC-NCSG] KK follow-up on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC proposals for rpms
Robin Gross
robin
Sat Nov 10 19:04:50 EET 2012
Kathy,
Thank you so much for all your work in the last couple of weeks on
these last minute IPC-BC demands. You've already made a big difference!
For those who don't know, Kathy participated remotely in the Brussels
discussion and made a huge difference in stopping the IPC-BC in their
tracks quite a few times, by providing Fadi with context and
perspective he hadn't heard before. I was also on the calls and he
really did listen to her and agree with the NCSG position several
times in the discussion. It was encouraging to see Fadi may be
educable about issues. (Although I'm still concerned that he doesn't
recognize the need for equality of participation among impacted
stakeholders).
Since the Brussels discussions, Kathy organized calls with the
Registries, Registrars, At-Large, and ICANN staff where she and I
have been going through these 8-point demands in detail and reaching
understanding and agreement with the other stakeholders on how to
address them (since most points are re-opening closed policies).
I think the community will be able to prevent most of the demands
from becoming policy this coming week in the final discussion in LA
on Thursday. The CSG will have 12-16 representatives in LA to lobby
for re-opening policy (plus we hear they have some new demands that
they have been cooking up in 3 CSG working groups). The contracted
parties will have 5-7 representatives in LA for this discussion. I
will be there for NCSG in person, plus Kathy will be participating
via telephone. I'm hopeful that Wendy and Konstantinos can also join
via phone.
Fadi was clear in the Brussels discussions in stating that any
proposals for policy changes have to go through the policy
development process. So Thursday should be listening to the IPC-BC
moan and wail about the world coming to an end because the Internet
is growing, and then the rest of the community saying "sorry, we
already decided these policy matters. Take them back to GNSO if you
want changes." We shall see.
Thanks again, Kathy!
Best,
Robin
On Nov 8, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Kathryn Kleiman wrote:
> Hi All,
> I?m glad Robin forwarded this because I was exhausted after two
> days of calls starting at 4am Eastern. You have my lengthy summary
> from the first day. The second day was pretty much focused on
> implementation ? and which of the two designs we should go with.
> Subject to public comment, the assembled team recommended the
> Neuman-Registries-ARI design (the ?alternate model?). From a
> policy perspective, it doesn?t seems to matter, and the design
> seems to make sense. In addition, comments from Avri and Wendy seem
> to indicate that technically things are better with the alternate
> model.
>
> One thing I am not sure of is whether the TM owner (as entered in
> TMCH) must be the same as the domain name owner. I like the idea as
> a way to prevent abuse, but I know a lot of people don?t like the
> idea because agents (attorneys, companies like MarkMonitor) often
> register domain names on behalf of clients even during Sunrise
> Periods. Comments welcome!
>
> But what concerned me throughout is the ongoing push of IPC/BC for
> their eight points ? really seven now. Fadi?s giving them at least
> 30 days notice on the terms of each new gTLD?s Sunrise Period, so
> #1 is taken of (and creatively too!).
>
> But the push for TM Claims being permanent (which completely
> horrifies me) goes on, as does the push for blocked registrations
> (and more). The IP guys kept asking whether the implementation
> designs being decided upon ?precluded? these plans ?as a
> possibility? These issues will be the topic of the AM Session,
> currently scheduled for 11/16 in LA next week. Hardly
> implementation, and certainly major policy, but how effectively and
> well we can make the claims may depend on who is in the room.
>
> That?s the scoop from here. Thoughts welcome. Safe travels.
> All the best,
> Kathy
>
> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-
> bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 8:57 PM
> To: NCSG-Policy
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN stmt on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC
> proposals for rpms
>
> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable-
> trademark-clearinghouse/
>
> Building a Secure and Reliable Trademark Clearinghouse
>
> by Fadi Chehad? on November 7, 2012
>
> Last week, I invited a group of stakeholder representatives to work
> with ICANN on architecture/implementation solutions for the
> Trademark Clearinghouse. The issues we tackled included:
>
> * Registration: How trademark data will be verified and
> recorded in the Clearinghouse.
> * Sunrise Management: How new gTLD registries will use
> Clearinghouse data to confirm eligibility for early registration of
> domain names.
> * Claims Management: How new gTLD registries and registrars
> will facilitate required notices of Clearinghouse records during
> the domain name registration process.
>
> Members of the Business, Intellectual Property, and Noncommercial
> Users constituencies, as well as the Registrar and Registry
> stakeholder groups, all contributed to a constructive discussion on
> implementation approaches, and found common ground in several areas.
>
> Here is a summary of our findings:
> Trademark Submission and Verification
> Publication of Functional Specifications
>
> ICANN will provide a roadmap for the development of the trademark
> submission and verification components of the Clearinghouse in
> December 2012. It will clearly define the capabilities that will be
> available in the initial release planned for early 2013, to support
> those parties who will be implementing and building internal
> processes and systems to work with this element of the Clearinghouse.
> TLD Launch and Sunrise Information
>
> ICANN is exploring options to help ensure that timely and accurate
> information on new gTLD launches is readily available. The options
> we discussed include an advance notice requirement and a central
> web portal to track the dates and requirements for each new gTLD
> sunrise period. Organizing this information in a timely fashion
> will keep users informed of current activity and help them plan
> effectively for upcoming launches. ICANN will deliver such
> capabilities next year before delegating any new gTLDs.
> Communications and Training Activities
>
> We agreed that there should be implementation seminars conducted
> periodically to ensure a continuous dialogue between the
> implementers and the different types of users. Given the diversity
> of users we expect will access the Clearinghouse (including a range
> of volume and service roles), training ?tracks? will help
> Clearinghouse users become familiar with specific features most
> useful to them. Educational materials, including a step-by-step
> guide to the verification process, also will be available. ICANN
> will coordinate the provisioning of such services with its delivery
> partner in the near term.
> Sunrise Implementation
> Use of Signed Sunrise Data Files
>
> The group agreed to support a model for sunrise in which
> Clearinghouse record data is provided to rights holders in the form
> of a data file cryptographically signed with a Clearinghouse public
> key. It can then be used to enable registration of a domain name in
> the sunrise period. The specific fields to be included in the file
> are matters for follow-up discussions.
> Flexibility for Rights Holders in Sunrise
>
> The group discussed the degree of ?matching? that should be
> required between the Clearinghouse record and the Whois data for a
> domain name registered based on the sunrise eligibility. Given that
> a valid data file means that the Clearinghouse has verified the
> information, and that flexibility is important to trademark
> holders, we did not reach agreement on a matching requirement.
> However, registries are free to perform additional verification
> steps at their discretion. Dispute resolution procedures are
> available to address cases of fraud or other abuse relating to
> sunrise registrations.
> Trademark Claims Implementation
> Centralized and De-centralized Features
>
> Participants reviewed the features of possible centralized and
> decentralized systems, and agreed to support a ?hybrid? system for
> Trademark Claims. In this system, a file of domain name labels
> derived from the trademarks recorded in the Clearinghouse (and
> hence subject to a Claims Notice) would be distributed to all
> registries and updated on a regular basis, and a live query system
> would be used to retrieve the detailed data from the Clearinghouse
> when necessary to display the Claims Notice to a prospective
> registrant. To ensure accuracy and consistency across TLDs, it was
> agreed that there should be a compliance requirement for the
> Clearinghouse to report to ICANN when registries don?t download the
> list of names with the frequency required.
> Registry guidelines
>
> All new gTLD registries are required to offer a minimum 30-day
> sunrise period, and to offer the trademark claims service for the
> at least first 60 days of general registration. Participants agreed
> to collaborate on recommended definitions to support additional
> clarity around these periods, in connection with ICANN?s
> publication of guidelines for registries concerning the sunrise and
> claims services. The 30 and 60 day periods are minimums, and
> registries have discretion to extend both periods.
> Data protection
>
> There was discussion on implementing an appropriate framework for
> access and use of the data. The group considered whether measures
> were necessary specifically to address potential mining of the
> Clearinghouse database for purposes other than to support the
> rights protection mechanisms. Given that the Trademark
> Clearinghouse is designed to provide trademark data for particular
> purposes, there was agreement that most controls would be
> ineffective in attempting to control data elements once provided to
> other parties.
> Next Steps
>
> The work we accomplished last week in Brussels puts us on solid
> ground for continued progress. We will hold follow-up meetings next
> week in Los Angeles with stakeholder groups invited to send
> representatives. A technical session with the Clearinghouse service
> provider will cover implementation architecture for Sunrise and
> Trademark Claims. A second meeting will cover the recent IPC/BC
> proposal for Improvements and Enhancements to the RPMs for new
> gTLDs [PDF, 68 KB], strictly focusing on implementation versus
> policy issues, as well as the business and contractual framework
> for the Clearinghouse, including the service-level agreements and
> pricing.
>
> My thanks to both the stakeholders and the ICANN team for their
> contributions to this effort. We made real progress!
>
> Best,
>
> Fadi
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121110/73a411c1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list