[PC-NCSG] KK follow-up on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC proposals for rpms

Avri Doria avri
Sat Nov 10 21:54:20 EET 2012


This sounds really good. Thanks for the effort.
Let me know if there is anything I can do remotely.

Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

>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
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>PC-NCSG mailing list
>PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

~~~
avri
Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121110/08d55e4e/attachment-0001.html>



More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list