[GTLD-WG] GTLD-WG Digest, Vol 42, Issue 7

Jean Guillon jean at guillon.com
Tue Nov 13 08:42:58 UTC 2012


Bonjour,

Un compte rendu à t-il été rédigé sur le point 2 ci dessous? Je suis
intéressé de le lire.
Bien à vous tous.

Jean Guillon

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 AM,
<gtld-wg-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org>wrote:

> 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:  GTLD-WG Digest, Vol 42, Issue 6 (Seth M Reiss)
>    2. Re:  Workspace on the Issue of Private Ownership of Common
>       Words as TLDs (CW Mail)
>    3. Re:  Meeting in LA to discuss TM protection issues (CW Mail)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:07:51 -1000
> From: "Seth M Reiss" <seth.reiss at lex-ip.com>
> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] GTLD-WG Digest, Vol 42, Issue 6
> To: <gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Message-ID: <00a001cdc109$03877d90$0a9678b0$@reiss at lex-ip.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:06:12 +0100
> From: CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Subject: Re: [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:
>         <D25ED86B-8711-4F85-8590-E3AE093F4833 at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=US-ASCII;       format=flowed;
>  delsp=yes
>
> Good evening:
>
> I want to make it quite clear that I am totally opposed to the private
> use of generic words in English or any other language as TLD domain
> names. The only exception that I would be prepared to contemplate
> would be that the generic domains would be OPEN to all users in that
> community, as endorsed by ICANN and the GAC.
>
> This issue has been on the table for nearly 15 years. It is time to
> draw the line.
>
> Regards to you all
>
> Christopher Wilkinson
>
>
>
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 16:20, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 3
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:08:39 +0100
> From: CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Subject: Re: [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:
>         <A7B17F0D-E26F-4E6A-913C-7AD1D08ECCFD at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Good evening:
>
> Back in 2000, or there abouts, we achieved an agreement about the ADR
> available to the TM interests.
> Why do we now need to do anything more?
>
> The ADR policies and procedures are still in place, I think.
>
> Regarding new TLDs, (a) it is not evident that the market can support
> most of them; let us not regulate about issues which may not
> materialise.
> (b)  if this was _really_ an issue, our TM friends, they would have
> raised it some time ago.
>
> Regards
>
> CW
>
>
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 19:45, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> > 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-clearinghouse/
> > .
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 7
> **************************************
>



-- 
*Jean Guillon*
Mobile: +33.631109837
contact <http://guillon.tel> | blog <http://blog.guillon.com>
Skype: jeanguillon


More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list