[IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants

Fri May 3 08:59:57 UTC 2013

Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.

Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions?  Indications of support or
disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated.  If you have questions
or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as
well.

If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to
amend the statement.

Best regards,

Rinalia

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon at isoc.hk> wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> Sorry for the late comments.  I read the draft at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants+Workspace?focusedCommentId=41883644#comment-41883644
>
> And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement.
> I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN
> Variants is real and it will be too late before long.  The TMCH MUST
> implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot
> based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their
> applications.
>
> I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
>
> 1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling
> The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first
> rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted
> certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing
> “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such “variant
> or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
>
> 2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH
> Model
> To take out the sentence: " However, we do strongly believe that ICANN
> should treat all trademarks equally, irrespective of the characters of the
> trademarks, and that users from all language communities should be
> protected from confusion equally."
>
> 3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH
> Model
> To expedite the development of appropriate solutions, the ALAC recommends
> that the Board request from the ICANN CEO an interim mechanism that can
> yield such solutions efficiently and on an urgent basis.  ICANN already has
> all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN
> Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the
> application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
>
>
> I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could
> help improve the statement.
>
> Edmon
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-
> > lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM
> > To: Alan Greenberg
> > Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo
> > Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and
> > Variants
> >
> > What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration.
> > What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants.
> >
> > I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems
> variants
> > would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are
> > considered common data items and stored in the common database.
> >
> > -Carlton
> >
> >
> > ==============================
> > Carlton A Samuels
> > Mobile: 876-818-1799
> > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> > =============================
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg
> > <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:
> >
> > > Note that the TMCH has two separate components.
> > > The backend and the interface with registries is, I believe, a single
> > > database and is being run under contract to ICANN by IBM. The
> > > interface to TM holders and the validation service is contracted to
> > > Deloitte. The design explicitly allows for distributed user interfaces
> > > and validation services to ensure proper handling of different
> > > languages, scripts and TM law.
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > At 23/04/2013 07:17 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
> > > >Also agree with Yaovi on removing the word "centralized"
> > > >And thanks to Hong and Rinala for the work done on this statement.
> > > >
> > > >Dev Anand
> > > >
> > > >On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, the opening of offices in Turkey and Singapore makes
> > > > > it
> > > hard
> > > > > to argue that ICANN isn't at least making an attempt to
> decentralize.
> > > > >
> > > > > (Please don't see my relative silence as lack of interest, but
> > > > > rather
> > > lack
> > > > > of depth in the issue)
> > > > >
> > > > > - Evan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 23 April 2013 14:19, Yaovi Atohoun <yaovito at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi all,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In the statement we can read :
> > > > >> "... we strongly urge ICANN to move away from a model that is
> > > centralized,
> > > > >> inflexible and unfriendly to variants. "
> > > > >>
> > > > >> My question : Is is not possible to have a model that is
> > > > >> centralized
> > > and
> > > > >> taking into account IDN variant issues?
> > > > >> If so my recommendation is to remove the word "Centralized" in
> > > > >> the sentence above.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yaovi
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ________________________________
> > > > >>  De : JJS <jjs.global at gmail.com>
> > > > >> À : Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> Cc :
> > > > >> apralo <apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; No name <
> > > > >> idn-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ALAC Working List <
> > > > >> alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé le : Dimanche 21 avril 2013
> > > > >> 4h11 Objet : Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and
> > > > >> Variants
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> *Dear Rinalia,*
> > > > >> *
> > > > >> *
> > > > >> *you've done a very thorough job, thank you. * *Below, my
> > > > >> **suggested modifications in red.*
> > > > >> *
> > > > >> *
> > > > >> *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark
> > > > Clearinghouse and IDN Variants
> > > > >> *
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is deeply concerned by the
> > > > >> implementation model outlined in the “Trademark Clearinghouse:
> > > > >> Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements” published
> > > > on April 6, 2013.  We view the
> > > > >> model to be deficient in that it overlooks the critical issue of
> > > > >> IDN variants; thus implemented, the model would clearly run
> > > > >> against the
> > > public
> > > > >> interest in the pertinent
> > > > >> user communities.*
> > > > >> *
> > > > >>
> > > > >> *(1) Domain Name Matching*
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Language communities have requested that TMCH services factor
> > > IDN-script
> > > > >> trademarks involving variants and that ICANN consider adopting
> > > > >> community-based solutions to address this issue since October
> 2011.
> > > > >> Despite
> > > > >> concerns raised by language community experts in the TMCH
> > > Implementation
> > > > >> Assistance Group (IAG), the domain name matching requirements of
> > > > >> the
> > > TMCH
> > > > >> still does not take into account trademarks in IDN scripts
> > > > >> involving variants.  Variant matching is critical in certain
> > > > >> languages and particularly in Chinese.  To illustrate, when a
> > > > >> trademark holder registers a simplified Chinese word-mark and not
> > > > >> its
> > > traditional
> > > > >> equivalent, the TMCH will accordingly generate only one trademark
> > > record.
> > > > >> The
> > > > >> new gTLD registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and
> > > trademark
> > > > >> claims for trademarks recorded in the TMCH.  Without variant
> > > > >> matching requirements in place, only that registered simplified
> > > > >> word-mark will
> > > be
> > > > >> eligible for trademark protection.  This leaves the traditional
> > > word-mark
> > > > >> equivalent open for cybersquatting.  Given that both simplified
> > > > >> and traditional writings of the word-mark are deemed identical by
> > > > >> Chinese communities worldwide (and by norm few trademarks are
> > > > >> registered in
> > > both
> > > > >> writings),
> > > > >> ruling out the un-registered writing by not
> > > > allowing variant matching would
> > > > >> make the TMCH completely useless to Chinese
> > > > trademarks, and would result in
> > > > >> an unfair penalty against users of Chinese.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> *A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model*
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Trademarks have a very important function in safeguarding the
> > > > >> public interest by identifying the source of goods and services.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> *The rest seems fine.*
> > > > >> *
> > > > >> *
> > > > >> *Best regards,*
> > > > >> *Jean-Jacques.*
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2013/4/20 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Dear Members of the IDN WG, APRALO and ALAC Colleagues,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I have revised the proposed " *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board
> > > > >> > on
> > > > >> Trademark
> > > > >> > Clearinghouse and IDN Variants*" based on Hong's draft,  input
> > > received
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> > Beijing and my own consultation with IDN Variant experts.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Please review and comment on the draft on
> > > > the wiki for tracking purposes.
> > > > >> > The wiki page for the draft is here -
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+the+I
> > > CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Once the text is deemed satisfactory, it will be forwarded to
> > > > >> > the
> > > ALAC
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > a vote.  Please try your best to respond with comments by
> > > > >> > Friday
> > > April
> > > > >> > 26th.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Text pasted below for rapid review.  The final version will be
> > > proofread
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > a summary of recommendations will be produced as part of the
> > > > >> > final
> > > > >> version
> > > > >> > (as per our norm in giving advice to the Board).
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Best regards,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Rinalia
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >  *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark Clearinghouse and
> > > > >> > IDN Variants
> > > > >> > *
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is deeply concerned by
> > > > >> > the implementation model outlined in the “Trademark
> > Clearinghouse:
> > > Rights
> > > > >> > Protection Mechanism Requirements” published on April 6, 2013.
> > > > >> > We
> > > view
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > model to be deficient in that it overlooks the critical issue
> > > > >> > of IDN variants, which would seriously impact the public
> > > > >> > interest in the
> > > > >> pertinent
> > > > >> > user communities.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > We wish to highlight two areas of particular concern in the
> > > Trademark
> > > > >> > Clearinghouse (TMCH) requirements:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > *(1) Domain Name Matching*
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Language communities have requested that TMCH services factor
> > > IDN-script
> > > > >> > trademarks involving variants and that ICANN consider adopting
> > > > >> > community-based solutions to address this issue since October
> 2011.
> > > > >> >  Despite
> > > > >> > concerns raised by language community experts in the TMCH
> > > Implementation
> > > > >> > Assistance Group (IAG), the domain name
> > > > matching requirements of the TMCH
> > > > >> > still does not take into account trademarks in IDN scripts
> > > > >> > involving variants.  Variant matching is critical for certain
> > > > >> > languages and particularly for the Chinese language.  To
> > > > >> > illustrate, when a
> > > trademark
> > > > >> > holder registers a simplified Chinese word-mark and not its
> > > traditional
> > > > >> > equivalent, the TMCH will accordingly
> > > > generate only one trademark record.
> > > > >> >  The
> > > > >> > new gTLD registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and
> > > trademark
> > > > >> > claims for trademarks recorded in the TMCH.  Without variant
> > > matching
> > > > >> > requirements in place, only that registered simplified
> > > > >> > word-mark
> > > will be
> > > > >> > eligible for trademark protection.  This
> > > > leaves the traditional word-mark
> > > > >> > equivalent open for cybersquatting.  Given that both simplified
> > > > >> > and traditional writings of the word-mark are
> > > > deemed identical by the Chinese
> > > > >> > community (and by norm few trademarks are registered in both
> > > writings),
> > > > >> > ruling out the un-registered writing by not allowing variant
> > > matching
> > > > >> would
> > > > >> > make the TMCH completely useless to Chinese trademarks.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > *(2) Domain Name Bundling*
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The TMCH requirements specifically prohibit any registry from
> > > > >> implementing
> > > > >> > “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under
> > > > >> > such
> > > > >> “variant
> > > > >> > or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion
> > > > of the Sunrise Period.  Such a
> > > > >> > restriction would exclude the accommodation of any solution for
> > > > >> > IDN trademarks involving variants during the
> > > > sunrise period at the TLD level,
> > > > >> > even though registries may be willing to address the variants
> > > through
> > > > >> their
> > > > >> > own registration management and at their own expense.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >  *A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model*
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Trademarks have a very important function of safeguarding the
> > > > >> > public interest by identifying the source of goods and
> > > > >> > services.  If left unaddressed,
> > > the
> > > > >> > deficiencies of the TMCH model design may likely cause serious
> > > public
> > > > >> > confusion and result in market chaos.  In principle, the
> > > > >> > At-Large
> > > > >> community
> > > > >> > does not support over-extensive trademark protection measures.
> > >  However,
> > > > >> we
> > > > >> > do strongly believe that ICANN should treat all trademarks
> > > > >> > equally, irrespective of the characters of the
> > > > trademarks, and that users from all
> > > > >> > language communities should be protected from confusion equally.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > In September 2012, the ALAC statement on
> > > > the TMCH called for a “more open
> > > > >> > and flexible model” that can address our community’s concerns
> > > regarding
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > limitations of a uniform model, which would be applied to all
> > > > >> > gTLD registries irrespective of their differences and
> > > > >> > competencies.  We
> > > > >> believe
> > > > >> > that new gTLD registries require a more open and flexible TMCH
> > > model to
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> > successful and we strongly urge ICANN to move away from a model
> > > that is
> > > > >> > centralized, inflexible and unfriendly to variants.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > In light of the considerations above, the ALAC urges the ICANN
> > > Board to
> > > > >> > call for a more open and flexible TMCH model.  Towards this
> > > > >> > end, we
> > > urge
> > > > >> > the Board to support a community-based, bottom-up solution for
> > > > >> > TMCH implementation and to ensure that the IDN variant issue is
> > > > >> > addressed
> > > > >> before
> > > > >> > the TMCH begin providing services to the new gTLD registries.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > We understand that addressing the IDN Variant issue in a
> > > > >> > holistic
> > > way
> > > > >> > requires the development of Label Generation Rules (LGR) for
> > > > >> > the
> > > Root
> > > > >> Zone,
> > > > >> > which experts and Staff have projected to
> > > > require a minimum of 12 months.
> > > > >> >  We
> > > > >> > appreciate that the LGR development requires conscientious
> > > > >> > effort to maintain the security and stability of the Internet,
> > > > >> > but we are also mindful that the business and practical
> > > > >> > requirements of new gTLD applicants, especially from developing
> > > > >> > economies, call for urgent implementation.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > To expedite the development of appropriate
> > > > solutions, the ALAC recommends
> > > > >> > that the Board request from the ICANN CEO an interim mechanism
> > > > >> > that
> > > can
> > > > >> > yield such solutions efficiently and on an urgent basis.  This
> > > > >> > may
> > > > >> require
> > > > >> > additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities
> > > working in
> > > > >> > tandem with community members with relevant expertise.  It may
> > > > >> > also
> > > > >> require
> > > > >> > a consideration of expediting the LGR process for the Han
> script.
> > >  We
> > > > >> > understand that in the general case, the handling of variants
> > > > >> > is a
> > > > >> complex
> > > > >> > issue. However, for variant cases that are well defined and
> > > understood,
> > > > >> > such as the case of the Han script, ICANN should proceed on a
> > > fast-track
> > > > >> > basis to include variant support in the TMCH in time to
> > > > >> > accommodate
> > > the
> > > > >> > delegation of the appropriate TLDs.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > END
> > > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > > >> > IDN-WG mailing list
> > > > >> > IDN-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > > >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > IDN WG Wiki:
> > > > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> ALAC mailing list
> > > > >> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> > > > >>
> > > > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
> > Large+Advisory+Committe
> > > e+(ALAC)
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> ALAC mailing list
> > > > >> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> > > > >>
> > > > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
> > Large+Advisory+Committe
> > > e+(ALAC)
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Evan Leibovitch
> > > > > Toronto Canada
> > > > >
> > > > > Em: evan at telly dot org
> > > > > Sk: evanleibovitch
> > > > > Tw: el56
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > ALAC mailing list
> > > > > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> > > > >
> > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
> > > >
> > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
> > Large+Advisory+Committe
> > > e+(ALAC)
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >APAC-Discuss mailing list
> > > >APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
> > > >
> > > >Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ALAC mailing list
> > > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> > >
> > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
> > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
> > Large+Advisory+Committe
> > > e+(ALAC)
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
> > Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IDN-WG mailing list
> IDN-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
>
> IDN WG Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
>