[Tmch-iag] Follow-up from 15 Nov 11 teleconference

[Tindal Richard]

Karen,

Apologies for late submission of this.

P1:  SUNRISE

We think Option (1),  use of a token (or code), is superior to Options (2) or (3).    The primary advantage of Option (1), as noted by other respondents, is that it reduces the likelihood of mismatch between the Sunrise domain applicant contact details and the contact details in the clearinghouse for that mark.    Operational experience in earlier TLD launches indicates that legitimate Sunrise applicants frequently use contact details that differ from those provided to the entity performing the trademark clearinghouse function.    As a group we'll have to think through whether tokens apply at the level of (i) the trademark owner; (ii) a mark (which may be registered in multiple jurisdictions) ; or (iii) a jurisdiction-specific registration,  but I think we'll find ways to solve that.   

P2:    CLAIMS

An introductory comment.  As I read submissions from IAG members it seems some are assuming the Claims process will be non-realtime (i.e. effected through emails or some other method wholly separate to the standard registration process).  Per Jeff Neuman's submission, there are ways to make Claims realtime (i.e. completed during the standard domain registration process).  We think the great benefit of realtime Claims is that more registrars will participate.  If it's non-realtime some registrars may sit out the 60 day Claims period (before offering the TLD).   More registrar participation means more customer exposure to the trademark owners claim.     I'm interested in opinions on this from IAG members who are registrars.

We think Option (1), registrar displaying notice to domain applicant, is far superior to Options (2) or (3).  Notices provided by parties unknown to the domain applicant will very often be treated as spam, thereby reducing the benefit of the service.    Regarding the possible disadvantages of Option (1) in the discussion paper:

All three Options require some form of registrar implementation,  Option 1 isn't alone in this
Registrars don't necessarily need access to mark holder contact information.  The Clearinghouse can send notice that a name subject to Claim was subsequently registered
Verification that Claims were displayed (i.e. registrar compliance) can be adequately tested through sampling and registry oversight.   

Look forward to the next group discussion on this.

Regards

Richard Tindal
Donuts Inc.

On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Karen Lentz wrote:

> All,
>  
> I want to thank all of the attendees for participating in our IAG Kickoff Call.  Approximately 37 people attended from around the world and offered insightful comments in the initial discussion. 
> For those who were not able to attend, materials from the call are posted at https://community.icann.org/display/cctrdmrkclrnghsiag/Home, including slides, documents, chat transcript and audio recording.
>  
> Attached is a document describing Issue# P1 (Sunrise Domain Registration Authorization) and Issue# P2 ( Responsibility for Registrant Claims Notice) which we discussed on the call.  Please submit your written comments to these issues by 00:01 UTC 23 Nov 2011 to the mailing list. 
>  
> As discussed on the call, we are ultimately seeking your recommendations for either (1) one of the proposed options in the document or (2) your suggestions for alternatives that you believe to be more attractive and that should be considered.  Note that the description of P2 has been slightly edited since the document was originally published for the Dakar meeting.
>  
> In your written comments, please make sure to indicate:  (a) the issue number (P1 or P2), (b) the recommended option or alternative for the issue, (c) rationale (consideration of advantages and how any disadvantages could be minimized) and (d) any other comments.
> On the second call, on 30 November, we will brief you on written comments that we received by the deadline, continuing our discussion from 15 November.  As mentioned, we will be rotating the call times in fairness to the different regions – the next call will take place on 30 Nov 11 at 05:00 UTC.  I will be sending out separately a listing of all call dates/times through March.
>  
> We look forward to hearing from you.
>  
> Karen Lentz
> ICANN
>  
> <IAG-Issues-2011-11-30.doc><IAG-Issues-2011-11-30.pdf>_______________________________________________
> tmch-iag mailing list
> tmch-iag at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tmch-iag

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tmch-iag/attachments/20111127/ba36676b/attachment.html