[GTLD-WG] Letter Regarding Registry SG DIDT on TMCH

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Fri Oct 19 13:00:34 UTC 2012


Hi

I have rendered the bullets as questions.  I do not think I changed the meaning.

https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Letter+Regarding+Registry+SG+DIDT+on+TMCH?focusedCommentId=37193466#comment-37193466

As far as I can tell the words questioned by Alan are standard legal terminology.  Perhaps one of the lawyers in the groups want to define them for us. 

As far as I guess, without the benefit of legal training; subsistence or exercise:  something, in this case rights, that remains in force because of statue itself or some right that remains because you have actually used it.  But I am hoping someone corrects my first guess.

If Alan indicates he is ok, with the changes, and the rest of the group has not objections or further comment/change, I will run another last call.  At this point, since we are not longer under the deadline of trying to complete something during the meeting, I will make it a 48 hr call.

avri


On 17 Oct 2012, at 23:55, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> Avri, my first point, I could fix. The second I don't have a clue since I don't have a clue what the expression means. Hopefully some TM lawyer can explain. Or leave it and presume that whoever reads the statement is more literate than I am. Or less tire and more willing to search out the meaning.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 17/10/2012 11:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> These seem to me like substantive comments and changes.
>> 
>> I guess we missed the goal of submitting in Toronto.
>> 
>> Obviously we will have to work a bit more toward group consensus and wait to submit untii the we reach consensus.
>> 
>> Alan: once you have the chance please make your changes.
>> 
>> Once the text stabilizes again, I will restart the 24 hr clock.
>> 
>> Thank you
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> On 17 Oct 2012, at 17:30, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> 
>> > In middles of GNSO meeting. Don't have the bandwidth to focus on that now.
>> >
>> >
>> > At 17/10/2012 04:51 PM, Hong Xue wrote:
>> >> Thanks, Alan, you may wish to edit the content directly on the wiki.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. the first bullet does not seem to be a request for information, but a
>> >> > statement of advice.
>> >> > 2. the expression "for subsistence or exercise" is not one I am familiar
>> >> > with. Google found just 3 occurrences (which did not relate to weight loss),
>> >> > but they did not illuminate things a lot. Is it possible to use an
>> >> > expression that is in more common use, or at least have someone explain to
>> >> > me what it means?
>> >>
>> >> Sufficient disclosure of the technical solution in any given patent
>> >> application is a prerequisite to grant the patent. All the patents
>> >> must be made available to the public so as to subsist. Copyright and
>> >> Trademark are meaningless until used publicly.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Alan
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > At 17/10/2012 03:20 PM, Hong Xue wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi, Alan, that was only in the old version.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please refer to the updated version on wiki at
>> >> >>
>> >> >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Letter+Regarding+Registry+SG+DIDT+on+TMCH
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hong
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Alan Greenberg
>> >> >> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>> >> >> > In the bullet, "Why specific information business
>> >> >> > model information cannot be redacted, allowing
>> >> >> > for disclosure of other relevant information.", is that what we really
>> >> >> > mean?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Sure unredacted or revealed. As is it seems to be
>> >> >> > asking for information to be hidden.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Or am I mis-reading??
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Alan
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > At 17/10/2012 11:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> >> >> >>Hi,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>re:
>> >> >> >>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Le
>> >> >> >> tter+Regarding+Registry+SG+DIDT+on+TMCH
>> >> >> >>(plain text version below for anyone who cannot access a wiki)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Thanks for the changes.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>It is now 24 hours without change.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Last call: does anyone have an issue with my
>> >> >> >>sending this onto the ALAC for approval?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Thanks
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>avri
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>On 16 Oct 2012, at 11:15, Hong Xue wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Done.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Hong
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Can you make the changes on the Wiki page to be exactly what you
>> >> >> >> >> want?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> thanks
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> avri
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On 16 Oct 2012, at 10:17, Hong Xue wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>> Thanks, Avri, very timely and efficient. I made a few edit at the
>> >> >> >> >>> request part. Please see below.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Hong
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Letter+Regarding+Registry+SG+DIDT+on+TMCH
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> In August 2012 the Registry Stakeholder
>> >> >> >> Group filed a DIDP requesting all documents relating to
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>       • any claims alleging ownership of
>> >> >> >> intellectual property rights made by any bidder
>> >> >> >> or bidders [for TMCH] responding to the RFI,
>> >> >> >> including but not limited to claims of
>> >> >> >> copyright in data or compilations of
>> >> >> >> data,  patents, trademarks or trade secrets; and
>> >> >> >> >>>>       • any analysis regarding validity of these claims.
>> >> >> >> >>>> In September 2012 ICANN responded that:
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> Regarding this item, to the extent that
>> >> >> >> bidders made claims of ownership of
>> >> >> >> intellectual property rights associated with
>> >> >> >> the proposed operation of the Trademark
>> >> >> >> Clearinghouse, those materials are subject to
>> >> >> >> the same conditions of non-­disclosure
>> >> >> >> identified in conjunction with Documents on
>> >> >> >> cost and financial models regarding the
>> >> >> >> operation of TMCH. Regarding claims of
>> >> >> >> ownership of intellectual property rights
>> >> >> >> arising out of the operation of TMCH are being
>> >> >> >> negotiated and will be published in the finalized agreement later.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> [Hong] I paraphrased the ICANN's Response and shortened the second
>> >> >> >> >>> part. I will place the original expression back to avoid any
>> >> >> >> >>> misunderstanding.
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> ALAC wishes to request further information on the following:
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>       • Further clarification on the
>> >> >> >> information being given the protection of
>> >> >> >> non-disclosure. Normally Intellectual Property
>> >> >> >> rights are protected with public assertion and
>> >> >> >> Trademarks and other rights with Patents and
>> >> >> >> Patents Pending.  Since the information in
>> >> >> >> those processes affect the operation of a
>> >> >> >> critical ICANN process we do not understand why
>> >> >> >> this information is being given this level of shielding.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> [Hong] Seeking information on intellectual property rights affect
>> >> >> >> >>> or
>> >> >> >> >>> impact ICANN's decision and selection of TMCH providers. Legally,
>> >> >> >> >>> except trade secrets, intellectual property rights, including
>> >> >> >> >>> Patents,
>> >> >> >> >>> Copyright, Trademarks, should be publicly disclosed either for
>> >> >> >> >>> subsistence or exercise. If any intellectual property right affects
>> >> >> >> >>> or
>> >> >> >> >>> impacts ICANN's decision or selection, it shall be disclosed to the
>> >> >> >> >>> community in due course, rather than kept in secrecy.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>       • Why specific information business
>> >> >> >> model information cannot be redacted, allowing
>> >> >> >> for disclosure of other relevant information.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> [Hong] Seeking information on whether ICANN (and its community) is
>> >> >> >> >>> appropriately licensed on royalty-free or RAND
>> >> >> >> >>> (reasonable-and-non-discriminatory) basis by the relevant
>> >> >> >> >>> intellectual
>> >> >> >> >>> property owners.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>       • At what point the patents and patents pending will be
>> >> >> >> >>>> disclosed.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> [Hong] Seeking information on whether ICANN is developing necessary
>> >> >> >> >>> intellectual property policy in decision-making and procurement
>> >> >> >> >>> process.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> ALAC would further like to advise that
>> >> >> >> ICANN needs to implements a comprehensive
>> >> >> >> IETF-like IPR policy as soon as possible.
>> >> >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >> >>>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>> >> >> >> >>>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> >> >> >> >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> Working Group direct URL:
>> >> >> >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> --
>> >> >> >> >>> Professor Dr. Hong Xue
>> >> >> >> >>> Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
>> >> >> >> >>> Beijing Normal University
>> >> >> >> >>> http://www.iipl.org.cn/
>> >> >> >> >>> 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
>> >> >> >> >>> Beijing 100875 China
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>---Text ---
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>In August 2012 the Registry Stakeholder Group
>> >> >> >>filed a DIDP requesting all documents relating to
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>         • any claims alleging ownership of
>> >> >> >> intellectual property rights made by any bidder
>> >> >> >> or bidders [for TMCH] responding to the RFI,
>> >> >> >> including but not limited to claims of
>> >> >> >> copyright in data or compilations of
>> >> >> >> data,  patents, trademarks or trade secrets; and
>> >> >> >>         • any analysis regarding validity of these claims.
>> >> >> >>In September 2012 ICANN responded that:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Regarding this item, to the extent that bidders
>> >> >> >>made claims of ownership of intellectual
>> >> >> >>property rights associated with the proposed
>> >> >> >>operation of the Trademark Clearinghouse, those
>> >> >> >>materials are subject to the same conditions of
>> >> >> >>non-­disclosure identified in conjunction with
>> >> >> >>Documents on cost and financial models regarding
>> >> >> >>the operation of TMCH. Regarding claims of
>> >> >> >>ownership of intellectual property rights
>> >> >> >>arising out of the operation of TMCH are being
>> >> >> >>negotiated and will be published in the finalized agreement later.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>ALAC wishes to request further information on the following:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>         • intellectual property rights affect
>> >> >> >> or impact ICANN's decision and selection of
>> >> >> >> TMCH providers. Legally, except trade secrets,
>> >> >> >> intellectual property rights, including
>> >> >> >> Patents, Copyright, Trademarks, should be
>> >> >> >> publicly disclosed either for subsistence or
>> >> >> >> exercise. If any intellectual property right
>> >> >> >> affects or impacts ICANN's decision or
>> >> >> >> selection, it shall be disclosed to the
>> >> >> >> community in due course, rather than kept in secrecy.
>> >> >> >>         • whether ICANN (and its community) is
>> >> >> >> appropriately licensed on royalty-free or RAND
>> >> >> >> (reasonable-and-non-discriminatory) basis by
>> >> >> >> the relevant intellectual property owners.
>> >> >> >>         • whether ICANN is developing necessary
>> >> >> >> intellectual property policy in decision-making or contract
>> >> >> >> negotiation.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>ALAC would further like to advise that ICANN
>> >> >> >>needs to implement a thoughtful and
>> >> >> >>comprehensive intellectual property policy in
>> >> >> >>which public interest is properly secured. In
>> >> >> >>this regard, IETF's intellectual property policy sets a good example.
>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________
>> >> >> >>GTLD-WG mailing list
>> >> >> >>GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> >> >> >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Working Group direct URL:
>> >> >> >>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > GTLD-WG mailing list
>> >> >> > GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> >> >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Working Group direct URL:
>> >> >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Professor Dr. Hong Xue
>> >> >> Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
>> >> >> Beijing Normal University
>> >> >> http://www.iipl.org.cn/
>> >> >> 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
>> >> >> Beijing 100875 China
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Professor Dr. Hong Xue
>> >> Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
>> >> Beijing Normal University
>> >> http://www.iipl.org.cn/
>> >> 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
>> >> Beijing 100875 China
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>> 
>> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> 
> 




More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list