[GTLD-WG] Community review of TMCH Strawman proposals
evanleibovitch at gmail.com
Sun Dec 2 18:54:50 UTC 2012
Hi Avri and fellow WGers,
Being involved in the both the Trademark Clearinghouse and the Red Cross /
Olympic / NGO debate, I'm more than happy to engage here on three recent
gTLD initiatives that are relevant to us. All are in the realm of name
protection, but trademark owners and non-governmental organisations have
taken very different paths to impose their will (using very blunt
instruments) on the rest of the community. And the recent shopping list of
country objections to TLD applications clearly strikes me as abuse of the
intent of the objection process that came out of the "MAPO" debates.
I have strong personal feelings on these events, though my analysis is
incomplete. These moves - and the ways they are being dealt with - signal
notable shifts in the way ICANN works (some but not all of these changes
are positive from the public interest PoV). The GNSO is wailing about ICANN
working around it and subverting the MSM. But the GNSO's historic approach
to policy making has in very large part been direct cause of the current
problems; it is reaping what it has sown.
There are actually multiple related statements that the ALAC could (and IMO
should) be making:
1. The issue of blocking domains based on prior use needs more thoughtful
and nuanced approaches than are being relentlessly advanced.
2. The current PDP system is too slow and unwieldy for many issues, and a
PDP "light" is needed but its design must be balanced and have GAC and ALAC
3. Lack of clear distinction between policy and implementation, which has
suited the GNSO well until now, is now being used against it.
The changes happening are significant, and far too late into the gTLD
expansion program for my liking.
My thoughts on these issues are still evolving; I welcome the engagement
of other WG members as we consider how to react.
On 2012-12-01 3:42 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> A question has been posed to me on whether ALAC should comment on the
> Trademark Clearing House (TMCH) straw made proposals made by Staff as a
> reult of consultations with a group on ICANN stakeholders.
> The announcement found at:
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30nov12-en.htm contains the following inteoduction
> The Trademark Clearinghouse facilitates the protection of trademark rights
> during the initial allocation and registration periods for domain names in
> new generic top level domains (new gTLDs). All newgTLD registries will be
> required to use Clearinghouse data to ensure that a set of mandatory
> trademark rights protection mechanisms are applied to all new domain
> registrations occurring in at least the first 90 days of domain
> Following discussions at the Toronto meeting, ICANN met with a group of
> stakeholder representatives to complete implementation discussions on the
> Trademark Clearinghouse and its associated rights protection mechanisms.
> Among other subjects, these implementation meetings addressed the
> recentIPC/BC proposal for Improvements and Enhancements to the RPMs for new
> ALAC had two representatives on the panel Alan and Evan.
> The comment period ends 21 December. If this group decides it is
> appropriate to comment, we should recommend this to the ALAC and could
> provide a statement for them to approve. I have yet to determine a
> schedule with the ALAC Chair and Staff to determine when such
> recommendation/Statement would need ot be delivered to ALAC. for safety
> sake, I would assume that any statement we made would need to be ready at
> least by 14 December.
> I beleive that this group can opt to:
> - recommend that no statement/comment is necessary
> - comment on the process issue related to such special groups and policy
> - comment on the distinction between implementation and policy
> - comment on the substance of the strawman proposals
> - comment on both process and substance
> - other?
> To begin the discussion, I would like to get comments from Alan and Evan
> on their view about all of this. i beleive they have submitted reports to
> other lists which they might forward to this list.
> And obviously, we need to hear from the members of the group on the issues
> and on what we would like to recommend.
> If we decide to make a statement, I will be looking for people to write
> sections of that statement. I will act as collating editor for any
> statement but given a very strong negative personal view on this event,
> will remain a neutral editor during this activity. I am assuming all of
> you will act as a check and balance to insure I remain neutral in
> expressing the will of the group.
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Working Group direct URL:
More information about the GTLD-WG