[PC-NCSG] KK follow-up on discussions on TMCH and IPC/BC proposals for rpms
Avri Doria
avri
Sun Nov 11 08:44:23 EET 2012
Hasn't he already blown it, at least a bit, by restricting the number of participants to unequal numbers?
William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>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
Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121111/0c60660f/attachment.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list