[GTLD-WG] GTLD-WG Digest, Vol 42, Issue 6

Seth M Reiss seth.reiss at lex-ip.com
Mon Nov 12 19:07:51 UTC 2012


Apologies.

-----Original Message-----
From: gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
gtld-wg-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 8:47 AM
To: gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: GTLD-WG Digest, Vol 42, Issue 6

Send GTLD-WG mailing list submissions to
	gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	gtld-wg-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	gtld-wg-owner at atlarge-lists.icann.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of GTLD-WG digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re:  REMINDER / New gTLDs WG - Monday 12 November 2012 at
      1400	UTC (Yaovi Atohoun)
   2.  Workspace on the Issue of Private Ownership of Common	Words
      as TLDs (Evan Leibovitch)
   3.  Update on SARP (Cintra Sooknanan)
   4. Re:  Update on SARP (Avri Doria)
   5. Re:  REMINDER / New gTLDs WG - Monday 12 November 2012 at
      1400 - Summary minutes and AIs posted (Silvia Vivanco)
   6.  Meeting in LA to discuss TM protection issues (Alan Greenberg)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:43:03 +0000
From: "Yaovi Atohoun" <yaovito at yahoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] REMINDER / New gTLDs WG - Monday 12 November
	2012 at	1400	UTC
To: "At-Large Staff" <staff at atlarge.icann.org>,
	gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org,	"gTLD WG"
	<gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Message-ID:
	
<101445958-1352724417-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1333567385- at b
15.c4.bise7.blackberry>
	
Content-Type: text/plain

I am sorry that I could not attend this call.  I am attending a national
forum on personal data privacy organised by the national body set up for
this purpose. I will look at the minutes.

Yaovi
-----Original Message-----
From: At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
Sender: gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:55:04
To: ICANN At-Large Staff<staff at atlarge.icann.org>; gTLD
WG<gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: [GTLD-WG] REMINDER / New gTLDs WG - Monday 12 November 2012 at 1400
	UTC


Dear All,

The next meeting of the New gTLDs Working Group is scheduled on Monday 12
November 2012 at 1400 UTC.

For various times see:
http://tinyurl.com/9c5hmyb

The draft agenda and call details are available at:
http://tinyurl.com/9g3zmho

Adobe Connect:
http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atlarge-gtldwg/

Wiki workspace:
https://community.icann.org/x/8Yoi

If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at:
staff at atlarge.icann.org

Thank you.

Regards,

Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie
Peregrine
ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
E-mail: staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org>


_______________________________________________
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



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:20:44 -0500
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
Subject: [GTLD-WG] Workspace on the Issue of Private Ownership of
	Common	Words as TLDs
To: ICANN GTLD WG list <gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Message-ID:
	<CAMguqh3OFgG0U1jF1e+M8yHCMtBV3SSnrs3H3VYBbqMjwXw-4g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

https://community.icann.org/x/woFEAg

Maybe it's misnamed or mis-placed, but I need to start somewhere. I'll
woirk the mechanics out with Staff.

Here is where I (and others on the call who expressed an interest) will
work on summary of the general opinions raised in the two received
objections, as well as an analysis. The document may or may not call for
further ALAC action, but at very least will attempt to reflect the
discussions that have gone on so far on the issue.

I welcome any input as this is being developed -- either as a comment on
the wiki page, private or public communications.

-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:01:24 -0500
From: Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com>
Subject: [GTLD-WG] Update on SARP
To: At-Large GTLD WG List <gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>,
	newgtldrg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Cc: Karla Valente <karla.valente at icann.org>,	Dennis Chang
	<dennis.chang at icann.org>
Message-ID:
	<CANFk9VVY2jJ=wKko2Wx4eHH+S8pAmHgWFwh8y1AEMTQnzq_Rjg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Dear All,

Apologies for not being on the call today and any misunderstanding relating
thereto.

In fact in the interim, I have recused myself of leadership and calls on
this Working Group and the Review Group since taking up the role of CMR; as
it was expressed (and I agreed) that this would be a perceived conflict of
interest. Sincere apologies if I was misunderstood the extent of COI in
taking this stance, but many of you being members of the JAS would have
been privy to that email discussion with ICANN staff. My intention has
always been to continue the work of these two groups once my role as CMR is
complete (which should be at the end of this month).


My SARP update is as follows:

The SARP composition and any announcements on their work has been under the
remit of Staff, as members have strict confidentiality requirements they
must adhere to. Over the past few months the SARP has been meeting and
evaluating the community support applicants with a final call to be held
this week. The SARP has been working on the basis of consensus and to a
large part in line with the recommendations of the JAS. In instances where
the SARP has questioned the basis of peculiar aspects of the application,
requests for further information have been sent to the applicant and/or
information requested from the CMR to provide background of the JAS
evaluation and criteria.

There have been some aspects of this process that have been identified as
unforseen and which require follow up from staff such as-

   - the fact that applicants may modify their applications (such updated
   applications must be re-reviewed by the SARP) and
   - also subsequent evaluation that the approved applicants' circumstances
   have not changed (eg. from a not for profit to for profit entity or
change
   in financial position.


Also the SARP's evaluation has been limited strictly to the Board mandate
which did not include developing countries/local government and diaspora
communities etc. and it is anticipated that staff will make such
documentation (including SARP Training documentation) as well as the
mechanism for determining SARP members public soon.


I will be happy to discuss this further on the next call and resume my
duties on the working and review group if there is no objection.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration.

Cintra Sooknanan


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:12:56 -0500
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] Update on SARP
To: At-Large GTLD WG List <gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Message-ID: <14339789-B485-496B-B0B0-4900384DC88B at acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Thank you for this report.

While I now about the recusal from the ANgRG, I dod not know about the
recusal from the group of that you had stepped down from the vice-chair role
- though I guess that in retrospect it explains things.

I am wondering whether there is anyone else in this group that is willing to
take on a vice chair role.  

Thanks

avri



On 12 Nov 2012, at 12:01, Cintra Sooknanan wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Apologies for not being on the call today and any misunderstanding
relating
> thereto.
> 
> In fact in the interim, I have recused myself of leadership and calls on
> this Working Group and the Review Group since taking up the role of CMR;
as
> it was expressed (and I agreed) that this would be a perceived conflict of
> interest. Sincere apologies if I was misunderstood the extent of COI in
> taking this stance, but many of you being members of the JAS would have
> been privy to that email discussion with ICANN staff. My intention has
> always been to continue the work of these two groups once my role as CMR
is
> complete (which should be at the end of this month).
> 
> 
> My SARP update is as follows:
> 
> The SARP composition and any announcements on their work has been under
the
> remit of Staff, as members have strict confidentiality requirements they
> must adhere to. Over the past few months the SARP has been meeting and
> evaluating the community support applicants with a final call to be held
> this week. The SARP has been working on the basis of consensus and to a
> large part in line with the recommendations of the JAS. In instances where
> the SARP has questioned the basis of peculiar aspects of the application,
> requests for further information have been sent to the applicant and/or
> information requested from the CMR to provide background of the JAS
> evaluation and criteria.
> 
> There have been some aspects of this process that have been identified as
> unforseen and which require follow up from staff such as-
> 
>   - the fact that applicants may modify their applications (such updated
>   applications must be re-reviewed by the SARP) and
>   - also subsequent evaluation that the approved applicants' circumstances
>   have not changed (eg. from a not for profit to for profit entity or
change
>   in financial position.
> 
> 
> Also the SARP's evaluation has been limited strictly to the Board mandate
> which did not include developing countries/local government and diaspora
> communities etc. and it is anticipated that staff will make such
> documentation (including SARP Training documentation) as well as the
> mechanism for determining SARP members public soon.
> 
> 
> I will be happy to discuss this further on the next call and resume my
> duties on the working and review group if there is no objection.
> 
> Thank you very much for your kind consideration.
> 
> Cintra Sooknanan
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 




------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:37:51 -0800
From: Silvia Vivanco <silvia.vivanco at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] REMINDER / New gTLDs WG - Monday 12 November
	2012 at 1400 - Summary minutes and AIs posted
To: "yaovito at yahoo.fr" <yaovito at yahoo.fr>, ICANN At-Large Staff
	<staff at atlarge.icann.org>, "gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org"
	<gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, gTLD WG
	<gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Message-ID:
	
<BDBCC21442A22640A4ECE2C75A8E215A9436A9EE80 at EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear all,

The Summary minutes and AIs of today's call have been posted on the WIKI.
Kindly review and make any changes as necessary. 


https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+gTLD+WG+Action+Items+2012-11
-12

https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+gTLD+WG+Summary+Minutes+2012
-11-12

Thank you

Kind regards,

Silvia


Silvia Vivanco
Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: + 1 (202) 570-7119
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
Cell/Mobile: +1 (202) 735-7011


-----Original Message-----
From: Yaovi Atohoun [mailto:yaovito at yahoo.fr] 
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 1:43 PM
To: ICANN At-Large Staff; gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org; gTLD WG
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] REMINDER / New gTLDs WG - Monday 12 November 2012 at
1400 UTC

I am sorry that I could not attend this call.  I am attending a national
forum on personal data privacy organised by the national body set up for
this purpose. I will look at the minutes.

Yaovi
-----Original Message-----
From: At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
Sender: gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:55:04 
To: ICANN At-Large Staff<staff at atlarge.icann.org>; gTLD
WG<gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: [GTLD-WG] REMINDER / New gTLDs WG - Monday 12 November 2012 at 1400
	UTC


Dear All,

The next meeting of the New gTLDs Working Group is scheduled on Monday 12
November 2012 at 1400 UTC.

For various times see:
http://tinyurl.com/9c5hmyb

The draft agenda and call details are available at:
http://tinyurl.com/9g3zmho

Adobe Connect:
http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atlarge-gtldwg/

Wiki workspace:
https://community.icann.org/x/8Yoi

If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at:
staff at atlarge.icann.org

Thank you.

Regards,

Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie
Peregrine
ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
E-mail: staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org>


_______________________________________________
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



------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:45:18 -0500
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Subject: [GTLD-WG] Meeting in LA to discuss TM protection issues
To: At-Large GTLD WG List <gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Message-ID:
	<238e661d-6259-42eb-89e2-f95929a244c2 at EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Copy of a message sent to ALAC list
===================================

NOTE: THIS MESSAGE IS LONG, BUT WE ONLY HAVE A FEW DAYS IN WHICH TO ACT.

In Toronto, The IPC and BC presented a list of suggested rights 
protection mechanisms to ICANN. The document can be found at 
http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-pritz-17oct12-en.pdf
.

The substance was the following 8 points.

1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized
process.
2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; 
ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable.
3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its 
usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period.
4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level 
registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings 
previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) 
across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with 
appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest.
5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS.
6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an 
amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor.
7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications.
8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously 
found to have been abusively registered or used.

Note that these statements are rather vague in some cases, but no 
further details have been provided.

A meeting to iron out differences and clarify issues on the TMCH was 
held in Brussels about 2 weeks ago. The outcomes can be found at 
http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable-trademark-clear
inghouse/.

There will be a follow-up meeting in Los Angeles to discuss, (perhaps 
among other things), the BBC/IPC proposals. My understanding is that 
I an likely Evan will be invited to participate (remotely since no 
travel funding is being provided).

Following discussions with Evan and Olivier as well as Kathy Kleiman 
and Robin gross from NCUC, here is what I believe the current 
positions to be supported by ALAC to be.

IF YOU FEEL THAT ANY OF THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED, PLEASE SPEAK UP QUICKLY.

==========================
Our overall position is that we would prefer to not make any 
substantive changes at this late date, and particularly not ones that 
can reasonably be considered policy. This is said with the full 
understanding that throughout the new gTLD process, parts of the 
community have often considered things that they want changed to be 
"implementation", and things that they do not want changed to be 
"policy". In fact, the entire STI discussion 
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf) 
was deemed to be one of implementation and investigating the "policy 
implications" of the TMCH and URS.  Note that some of the proposals 
are clearly not "Policy" from a GNSO point of view.

That being said, it is possible that change will occur based on the 
issues raised by the BC/IPC, and the ALAC needs to consider the 
specific issues.

1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized
process.

ALAC has no strong feelings on this.My understanding is that it may 
already have been resolved during the Brussels meeting.


2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; 
ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable.

A TM Claim sends a notice to a potential registrant that the name 
they are registering possible overlaps with a TM's term. It does not 
stop the registration, but asks that the registrant confirm that 
their use is legitimate and does not violate TM rights (since TM 
rights are specific to the type of service/product offered and a 
geographic local, this is quite possible). The STI report said that 
Post-Launch Claims are not required. The AG says that at a minimum, 
Claims must be used for 60 days following general registration 
availability. Since neither of these terms are fully defined, it is 
not clear if these two requirements conflict or are both 
simultaneously possible. One of the outcomes of the Brussels meeting 
is to firm up some definitions, so perhaps this will become clear. 
That notwithstanding, the ALAC issued a minority report to the STI 
saying that with some specific reservations, we supported ongoing TM 
Claims. So we are basically supportive of the request.


3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its 
usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period.

This seems like a motherhood statement and as such ALAC has not 
problem with it. The only reservation is to the exact meaning of 
"increase its usefulness". If this is implying substantive change, we 
do need to consider it on its merits. That being said, the ALAC in 
its minority statement had supported the concept of allowing a URS 
claimant who was successful to have the domain transferred to them 
similar to what is allowed following a successful UDRP.

The concept of ICANN underwriting the URS for some period of time was 
originally suggested by me, so I support it in concept. The ALAC has 
never discussed it. At this point, it looks like there will be one or 
more URS providers who can do it for the required fee without subsidization.


4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level 
registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings 
previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) 
across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with 
appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest.

The ALAC in its minority statement did support allowing strings to be 
registered in the TMCH which included its TM term in conjunction with 
terms related to its service/products (ie Ford-Trucks). So we *might* 
be supportive of that part of the request. However, the term 
"prevent" is onerous, even with "appropriate safeguards".

We would suggest a position that this is a substantive change and 
should not be done at this time, but rather considered as in a future 
policy process. Furthermore, it is something whose value will not be 
significantly lower if it is somewhat delayed.


5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS.

The ALAC certainly supports this concept and our presumption has been 
that this will be included in the next RAA. To the extent that this 
BC/IPC request increases the pressue on ICANN to ensure that this 
happens, we support it.


6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an 
amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor.

This is already being discussed in the context of the new RAA. In 
particular, registrars believe that they should not be at a 
competitive disadvantage because some registrars stay on the old RAA 
and thus have lower costs (such as those associated with 
verification). From an ICANN point of view, there will certainly be 
sufficient compliance issues associated with new gTLDs that having 
all registrars who market them on the current RAA can only be viewed 
as good. ALAC strongly supports this.


7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications.

It is unclear exactly what this one means. Certainly ALAC supports 
any position that strengthens compliance enforcement. The reference 
to "Standard applications" is unclear. It *may* mean that like 
Community TLDs, standard (ie non-Community) TLDs should be required 
to honour the use of the TLD described in the application (currently 
there is no such requirement - they can apply for a TLD string for 
one purpose and change that purpose completely on implementation).

ALAC has generally advocated such a requirement, although it seems 
like it is a bit late to impose it on applicants who have applied 
under the current rules.


8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously 
found to have been abusively registered or used.

This is a possibly interesting new TM protection mechanism, and is a 
probably a subset of the "TM along with related terms" statement that 
we made in our minority report. Nevertheless, it is a substantive 
change, and like item 4, should be the subject of a policy process 
prior to implementation.

Alan (and Evan)



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
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

End of GTLD-WG Digest, Vol 42, Issue 6
**************************************


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5882 - Release Date: 11/08/12



More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list