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

Rinalia Abdul Rahim rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Sun May 5 13:45:54 UTC 2013 

Hello again, everyone.

Based on Edmon's input and the responses to date, please find below a
revised draft "ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark Clearinghouse
and IDN Variants."  Blue text represents the input provided by Edmon
(slightly tweaked for smooth integration into the overall text).  Red text
represents my proposed addition to clarify why the Root LGR is applicable
and has value for addressing the problem, plus an additional recommendation
for the Board based on Edmon's contribution.

Feedback appreciated for finalization a.s.a.p. on the policy development
wiki workspace located here:

https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants+Workspace


Best regards,

Rinalia


*Revised **Version: May 5th, 2013*

*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.  If implemented, the model would clearly run against the public
interest in the pertinent user communities.


We wish to highlight two areas of particular concern in the recently
published Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) requirements: Domain name matching
and bundling.

*
*

*Domain Name Matching*

Since October 2011, 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.  Despite concerns
raised by language community experts in the TMCH Implementation Assistance
Group (IAG), the newly published 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.

*
*

*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.


 The TMCH requirements grant absolute first rights to trademark holders,
which not only pre-empted certain business models, but also prevented
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.

*
*

*Towards 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.  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.  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
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
will create a framework for a more consistent management of variants across
all levels.  Experts and Staff have projected that this process will
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.  We believe that ICANN
already has all the necessary information to develop these solutions based
on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that were
required as part of the application submissions for new gTLDs offering IDN
registrations.  The development of the solutions 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.

*
*

*Summary of Recommendations to the ICANN Board*

   1. Call for a more open and flexible TMCH model that is
   variants-friendly and support a community-based, bottom-up solution for
   TMCH implementation.
   2. Ensure the IDN variant issue is addressed before the TMCH begin
   providing services to the new gTLD registries.
   3. Request from the ICANN CEO an interim mechanism that can yield
   appropriate solutions efficiently and on an urgent basis that may involve:


   - Additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities, who
   will work in tandem with community members with relevant expertise.
   - A consideration for expediting the LGR process for the Han script.
   - Reviewing the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies
   submitted by new gTLD applicants offering IDN registrations as a basis for
   developing the solutions.


END

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Edmon <edmon at isoc.hk> wrote:

> Sounds good.
> Edmon
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2013 8:51 AM
> > To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim
> > Cc: Edmon; JJS; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List
> > Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] [ALAC] Draft Statement on TMCH and
> > Variants
> >
> > Hi Rinalia
> >
> > I think the sentence strikes the right balance.  Well done
> >
> > Holly
> > On 04/05/2013, at 4:09 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Jean-Jacques and Edmon,
> > >
> > > Would the following be an acceptable middle ground?
> > >
> > > "In principle, the At-Large community does not support over-extensive
> > > trademark protection measures.
> > > However, we do strongly believe that users from all language
> > > communities should be protected from confusion equally, irrespective
> > > of the characters of the trademarks."
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Rinalia
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon at isoc.hk> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for:
> > >>
> > >> “ICANN should treat all trademarks equally”
> > >>
> > >> Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are
> > >> different types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered,
> > Unregistered, etc...
> > >> and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for
> > >> certain TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM
> > >> from Paris “might” be appropriately given priority over others...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement
> > >> sending the message to the board than the specifics.  If people feel
> > >> strongly about the sentence, I can live with it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Edmon
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *From:* JJS [mailto:jjs.global at gmail.com]
> > >> *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM
> > >> *To:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim
> > >> *Cc:* Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List
> > >> *Subject:* Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH
> > >> and Variants
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,*
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the
> > >> deletion of the following 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."
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?*
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *Jean-Jacques.*
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>
> > >>
> > >> 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=418836
> > 44#co
> > >> mment-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+th
> > >>>> e+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
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------
> > >> No virus found in this message.
> > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > >> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date:
> > >> 05/02/13
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
>
>

More information about the IDN-WG mailing list