[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