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

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Mon Nov 12 04:22:17 UTC 2012


Hi,

I think this may be a dangling item for tomorrow's call.

While I sent this out and it got no response, I never did do another last call.

However, Olivier did ask me if this was ready for the ALAC while we were at IGF and I indicated that I thought it was.  
As it was the end of the comment period, I did ask him to go ahead and ask for ALAC approval to send it on as an ALAC comment.  

I do not know whatever happened after that so hope to get an update either before or during our meeting.

avri



On 19 Oct 2012, at 09:00, Avri Doria wrote:

> 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