[Tmch-iag] Trademark Clearinghouse IAG - Issue T3 and Issue N2

Fri Feb 17 21:02:31 UTC 2012

Dear IAG,

I agree with Brian that EPP should be the protocol of choice concerning
queries or transactions with the TMCH.  This is much preferred over some
non-EPP version of XML.  In terms of performance, EPP has proven itself for
the past 10 years in various registry operations.

ICANN may want to announce a TMCH vendor before consensus is reached on many
of the TMCH protocols and processes.  However, this may not be that
critical, as long as the selected vendor is not pre-disposed to any one
particular solution and can implement the eventual consensus approach.

In an ideal world, registries and registrars want to be able to operate in
complete independence.  Where they need to rely on others, such as the TMCH,
then system redundancies and service-level agreements are called for.
Performance concerns are predominantly an issue during the processing of
trademark claims.

Previous discussions have raised whether data should be distributed to
registries to eliminate any dependence on the TMCH.  But providing copies of
the TMCH data to each registry (or their back-end operators) without the
ability to control and monitor access is not desirable for data security
reasons.   Distributing encrypted data in packaged database applications is
possible but not very practical.  

However, the TMCH vendor should be capable of distributing TMCH data
globally while maintaining full control of the data.  This would require the
TMCH vendor to locate multiple servers around the world.  This may be the
one exception to mandating universal use of EPP.   

For example, the TMCH could mirror servers containing the list of claims
notices and associated data within a global network of DNS servers around
the world.  Multiple redundancies are provided through the use of Anycast
DNS.  The TMCH data becomes distributed  but only to TMCH-controlled
servers.  Such a global network would ensure optimum response time and near
100% up-time availability for registries while maintaining the security of
the data.  Note that there any many registries and DNS service providers
that already do this.  In addition, the TMCH can log every claims request
for analysis of possible data mining.  

Detailed Comments to T2 and T3:

T2:  Data Access

A comment on the "Public" option, which is defined as "Information may be
published or distributed without restriction"

I don't think there is any TMCH data that should be published or distributed
without restrictions.  All data would then be categorized as "internal",
"partner" or "restricted".

T3: Communication Protocols

Here are some specific responses to the blanks in the T3 Protocol Table:

*	Sunrise 6: EPP
*	Sunrise 7-8a: EPP
*	Claims 4-5. EPP or DNS.  This is where the TMCH can log every claims
request for analysis of possible data mining
*	Claims 10-11a: EPP
*	Claims 13-14a: EPP.  ***I am actually proposing the flow be reversed
here: for the transaction to be initiated by the TMCH with a query to the
Registry, whereby the TMCH discovers which of the requested claims resulted
in a registration.  I think this is more efficient since the Registry has no
visibility of which registrations displayed a claims notice and would need
to perform extra work to determine which registrations matched a claim.

Thank you.

Tom Barrett

EnCirca, Inc

400 West Cummings park, Suite 1725

Woburn, MA 01801

+1.781.942.9975 ext. 11

+1.781.492.1315 (cell)

+1.781.823.8911 (fax)

  _____  

From: tmch-iag-bounces at icann.org [mailto:tmch-iag-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Winterfeldt, Brian
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 2:41 PM
To: tmch-iag at icann.org
Subject: [Tmch-iag] Trademark Clearinghouse IAG - Issue T3 and Issue N2

Dear Trademark Clearinghouse IAG,

Please see my below comments on the following issues:

Issue T3

Dear Trademark Clearinghouse IAG,

The issue has been raised whether to use EPP as the communication protocol
of choice for communications between the Trademark Clearinghouse and the
registries and registrars.  While I understand that use of DNS or https in
conjunction with xml are viable alternatives, I still believe that EPP
should be the protocol of choice.  First, most registrars and registries
already possess a working familiarity with EPP as they use it in their
day-to-day operations, and it will be a required protocol between all
registries and registrars in all new gTLDs.  Second, EPP was originally
designed with the flexibility and adaptability in mind to extend its use in
situations such as this.  Finally, the implementation costs for EPP are
already well-known by all the involved parties, including ICANN itself.  To
deviate from EPP would add more unknown costs and implementation variables
when a workable, easily implemented solution of EPP is readily available.

Issue N2

Dear Trademark Clearinghouse IAG,

With respect to Issue N2, I agree that there should be penalties for any
individuals making fraudulent submissions to the Clearinghouse.  If an
individual does indeed make a fraudulent submission, then I believe that the
appropriate penalty should be to forfeit that listing.  Should this
individual make repeated fraudulent submissions, however, then I believe a
lifetime ban from the Clearinghouse is an appropriate penalty.

Regarding the time period for revalidation in the Clearinghouse, I believe
that annual or biannual revalidation periods create unduly burdensome
reporting requirements for trademark owners, especially if a markholder
chooses to register a significant number of marks.  Accordingly, I think
that the revalidation period in the Clearinghouse should match the timeframe
for renewal required in the applicant's trademark jurisdiction (e.g. a
markholder in U.S. would submit his revalidation to the Clearinghouse when
he also submits the corresponding renewal to the USPTO).

Thank you,

Brian

Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
TEL 202.429.6260 | FAX 202.261.7547 

The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged, confidential,
and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think
that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the
sender at " <mailto:bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com> bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com."
Thank you.

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4815 - Release Date: 02/17/12

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tmch-iag/attachments/20120217/70932a38/attachment-0001.html 