[PC-NCSG] KK follow-up on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC proposals for rpms
William Drake
william.drake
Sun Nov 11 08:01:19 EET 2012
Indeed, bravo! A good test case for Fadi's "multi-equal stakeholder" [sic] shtick, if he blows that early it won't help.
On Nov 10, 2012, at 23:54, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121111/99766eda/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list