<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:847868371;
mso-list-template-ids:237290356;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="2050" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Hello Karen and IAG participants, Specific comments regarding the draft model;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Part 3 – Sunrise and Trademark Claims Process<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">3.1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">“the use of public/private keys would not be too burdensome, and could be useful for validating requests"<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">As described, the proposed model seems to be using a hash code with a shared secret key per Top-Level Domain instead of the use of public/private keys.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">This approach does not seem to permit a domain name registry to access detailed trademark data for the purposes of executing sunrise eligibility for a new domain name application
or for the purposes of resolving multiple sunrise applications for the same second-level domain name. Perhaps there is a yet to be communicated approach on how this data would be obtained, but this seems to be a gap. An alternative approach would be to have
the Trademark Clearinghouse sign the relevant trademark information that is passed down from the mark holder to the registrar and finally to the registry. The trademark information could be verified with the Trademark Clearinghouse public key, and since the
information is isolated to just the domain name being registered, more information would be available through the channel to make appropriate registration policy decisions. The data can be verified and only the trademark data relevant to the domain name registration
would be exposed through the channel. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Some alternatives to protect mark holders information and provide data registries need would include;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The Trademark Clearinghouse creates a signed token that consists of the trademark information (string, type, locality, etc.), the client (registrant to registrar
to registry) can pass the plain text trademark information for the registry to apply registration policy decisions. This model does not include the risk of mining since the registrant is explicitly passing the relevant information for the registration request
that can be trusted based on the use of a digital signature and verifiable via the Trademark Clearinghouse public key. There are three different models for verifying the trademark information:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Mark Code that is verified directly with the Trademark Clearinghouse Service. Additional information could be returned if everything matches the Trademark Clearinghouse service for making registration
policy decisions.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Mark Code that is verified with the sunrise local file cache. The only thing that is contained in the cache is the code as defined by the current approach. <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Signed token using PKI. Registrant gets sent or requests a signed sunrise token for one or more domain names. The token can contain any amount of information necessary for the Registry to make
registration policy decisions and verified by the Registry using the Trademark Clearinghouse public key. <o:p></o:p></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">3.1.1 Sunrise Preparation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Please confirm that once a sunrise preparation file with sunrise codes is created and retrieved by the domain name registry from the Trademark Clearinghouse that updates/versions
will or will not be made. The next version of the draft model will need greater specification on the timing and mechanics of these files leading up to each sunrise launch.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">3.2 Trademark Claims<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">“ The Trademark Claims service provides a real-time notice to a party attempting to register a domain name that matches a Clearinghouse record, as well as notifying relevant
rights holders when a domain name is registered that matches a Clearinghouse record.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">At the time of the Trademark Claims Service period the Trademark Clearinghouse provides a local copy with detailed data to the registries, which is not impenetrable to potential
mining attempts. A registrant could mine the trademark information through the channel by simply checking a large set of domain names that will return the desired trademark information.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Mark holders should be aware that a lookup service to the Trademark Clearinghouse is the only method to receive a near real-time check for a prospective registrant in matching
a domain name to a mark in the Trademark Clearinghouse. When Registries use the proposed local file to respond there will be a delay from the time a mark is inserted into the Trademark Clearinghouse until the Trademark Clearinghouse publishes a new trademark
file, the registry pulls down and integrates the new file. This document does not propose how long that delay should occur, but will need to be agreed upon and fully tested to confirm viability.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">3.2 Protocols to Send Data to the Clearinghouse<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Use of Rsync and SSH with batch processing doesn't fall in line with what has become standard for system to system interaction in domain name industry. Was a protocol like
EPP or even REST considered for the interface between the Registry and the Trademark Clearinghouse? The Trademark Clearinghouse acts as a registry of trademarks, and a secure protocol should be used for the system to system interface in place of a batch file
interface over Rsync and SSH.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">3.2.1 Claims Preparation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">In future versions of the model draft please provide the available refresh interval for the claims data, and the file format (UTF-8?).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">3.4.3 EPP Protocol Extensions
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">We certainly appreciate the complexity of integrating the claims service into the domain name purchase flow. However, we are greatly concerned that this document seems to mandate
new protocol extensions to the EPP CHECK and CREATE commands without any mention of involving the protocol experts at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in determining the best solution.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Specifically, the significant alteration of the DOMAIN CHECK command may or may not be appropriate, but there are established processes to follow that involve the appropriate
protocol experts who will need to implement and manage the final solution. <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Part 5 – Additional Considerations<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">5.2 Matching Rules & Executive Summary (Variants)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">“The trademark claims notice data is obfuscated such that the only way to see the claims notice data is to check based on a specific
mark. “ <o:p></o:p></span></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The obfuscated data includes a unique lookup key per domain name that requires generating the lookup key using the domain name with
the TLD specific secret key. The unique generated lookup key supports only direct lookup. This works well if there is a direct match of the domain name, but does not work when a domain name can generate a gigantic number of variant strings that would need
to be searched one-by-one using the generated lookup key.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">"<span class="apple-style-span">The Clearinghouse will accept trademark information in its native form (i.e., using the Unicode
<a name="_GoBack"></a>character set); specific variant character mappings must be handled by the registry." <o:p></o:p></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The method which this document requires registries to lookup the data and check all potential variants is untenable in some scripts.
The only way to realistically include the variant information in the claims notice is to have access to the raw Unicode strings for those variants. Two solutions include where the registry only performs an exact matching of the domain names with the marks
(without any variant rules) or the trademark raw Unicode strings are made available in the trademark claims notice data file so the Registry can effectively check for the matching variants. </span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="371" style="width:278.25pt">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><img width="371" height="2" id="_x0000_i1027" src="cid:image002.gif@01CD2C74.07C5E290" alt="Verisign"></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:11.25pt 0in 15.0pt 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:10.5pt"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#006AAA">Will Shorter</span></b><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#6B6D71"><br>
Product Management<br>
wshorter@verisign.com<br>
Office: 703-948-3806<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.verisigninc.com/"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#006AAA;text-decoration:none">VerisignInc.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td valign="top" style="padding:11.25pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter" />
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0" />
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" />
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t" />
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_2" o:spid="_x0000_s1026" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="Verisign™" style='position:absolute;margin-left:3.55pt;margin-top:0;width:54.75pt;height:48pt;z-index:1;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square;mso-wrap-distance-left:0;mso-wrap-distance-top:0;mso-wrap-distance-right:0;mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;mso-position-horizontal:right;mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;mso-position-vertical:absolute;mso-position-vertical-relative:line' o:allowoverlap="f">
<v:imagedata src="cid:image001.gif@01CD2C74.0D6BF5E0" o:href="file:///C:\Users\wshorter\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Signatures\logo.gif" />
<w:wrap type="square" anchory="line"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><![if !vml]><img width="73" height="64" src="cid:image001.gif@01CD2C74.0D6BF5E0" align="right" alt="Verisign™" v:shapes="Picture_x0020_2"><![endif]><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> tmch-iag-bounces@icann.org [mailto:tmch-iag-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Karen Lentz<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 03, 2012 3:14 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> tmch-iag@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Tmch-iag] comments on draft Trademark Clearinghouse implementation model<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Jeff,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Yes, I will be following up with some date/time options for scheduling the call.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thanks for your comments on the timeline. The objective is still to have the Clearinghouse tested and established before any new gTLDs are operational. I
am writing a more detailed response on the schedule to try to provide more clarity here. Any feedback on the draft model is still helpful as early as we can get it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Karen Lentz<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">ICANN<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 03, 2012 6:36 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Karen Lentz; tmch-iag@icann.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Neuman, Jeff<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [Tmch-iag] comments on draft Trademark Clearinghouse implementation model<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Karen,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Do you have an update on the date and time? Are you doing a doodle poll to see when we can be available?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">With respect to your response below, can I just clarify that we will be discussing during the call the selection process for the provider and the affect that
this nearly 3 month delay will cause on the work that this group (and the community) need to do with the provider to ensure that final requirements on implementation are developed in time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
I also want to get on the record something that I know lots of other people are thinking, but may not have stated outwardly. I am enclosing the original presentation in Dakar from October 26, 2011. Many of us in Dakar thought that the schedule laid out there
was extremely aggressive. Some even thought impossible. Now we are 3 months behind (at least). According to the schedule in that presentation, not only was the selection of the provider supposed to happen in mid-February, but the IAG was supposed to have
at least a month to work with the provider to finalize the details. Implementation of the requirements was supposed to happen at the beginning of Q2 and testing between the TMCH and the registries/registrars at the end of Q2. Testing was to be completed
in Q3 and the TMCH was to go live in Q4. This was all designed such that a new gTLD that was approved and ready to launch 9 months after submitting the application (using the schedule in the Guidebook), could do so in early Q1 2013.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Now with the 1 month delay with the TAS, the earliest launch may not be until late Q1 2013, but still potentially in Q1. Even if that slips to early Q2, how
is it going to be possible that the TMCH will be ready? How and when will testing occur with the registries and registrars? Registries and registrars will need time to build out their systems depending on what the final requirements are. We need to get
the requirements, analyze how we will need to change our systems to accommodate the new requirements, and put them into our development cycles. As I am sure you are aware, many companies have development cycles that are determined 6 months, 1 year or longer
in advance. Then of course, registries and registrars must conduct internal testing, QA, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">How will trademark owners have had enough time to get their marks into the TMCH? The collection and entry of that data into the system takes quite some time
as well (which others that do this on a daily basis can provide much more insight into).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">It is one thing for the application process to be delayed due to a glitch in the application system. That is hard enough to swallow for a number of the applicants.
But a further delay once registries have been selected, entered into an agreement with ICANN, entered into the root and ready to launch, simply because the TMCH selected by ICANN is not ready, will be inexcusable. Even if the TMCH is ready, delivering the
final requirements to registries/registrars must be done with sufficient time to enable them to be ready to support the launches. ICANN cannot simply state that it has released the final requirements many months late, then just blame the registries, registrars
and trademark owners for not being able to launch on time. I can just see the PR-spin. “ICANN has TAS system ready to launch” announced by in Q1 next year and then answering a question from the press stating “I don’t know why new TLDs cant launch in Q2….we
announced we were ready in Q1.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As you can see, the ripple effect of this delay is tremendous and detrimental to the successful on-time launch of any new gTLD registry.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:6.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Jeffrey J. Neuman</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#3366FF">
<br>
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#068658">Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs</span></b><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a href="mailto:tmch-iag-bounces@icann.org">tmch-iag-bounces@icann.org</a> <a href="mailto:[mailto:tmch-iag-bounces@icann.org]">
[mailto:tmch-iag-bounces@icann.org]</a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Karen Lentz<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 01, 2012 2:42 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:tmch-iag@icann.org">tmch-iag@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Tmch-iag] comments on draft Trademark Clearinghouse implementation model<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Jeff,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">With regard to provider announcement and possible participation on the call, at the current time this is still to be determined.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">However, one of the things we will cover on the call will be an update on this area with the expected steps/envisioned timeline for milestones going forward.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Karen Lentz<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">ICANN<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Jeff Eckhaus [<a href="mailto:eckhaus@demandmedia.com">mailto:eckhaus@demandmedia.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:13 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Karen Lentz; <a href="mailto:tmch-iag@icann.org">tmch-iag@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Tmch-iag] comments on draft Trademark Clearinghouse implementation model<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Karen,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Thanks for the update on the timing of the comments and the call. Is there any update to the timing of the reveal of the TMCH provider? Do you believe we will
have the provider on the call that is scheduled for the week of May 14-18 to discuss implementation? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Jeff<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Karen Lentz <<a href="mailto:karen.lentz@icann.org">karen.lentz@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:tmch-iag@icann.org">tmch-iag@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:tmch-iag@icann.org">tmch-iag@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Tmch-iag] comments on draft Trademark Clearinghouse implementation model<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">All,</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thank you for the comments and the interest in having a call. I am working on scheduling a call during the week of May 14-18. In light of this, comments can
continue to be submitted through <b>Friday, 18 May</b>. I will provide more call details as soon as I can confirm the date/time.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Best regards,</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Karen Lentz</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">ICANN</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> Hong Xue [<a href="mailto:hongxueipr@gmail.com">mailto:hongxueipr@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 01, 2012 2:54 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Karen Lentz<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:tmch-iag@icann.org">tmch-iag@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Tmch-iag] Keith Barritt comments on draft Trademark Clearinghouse implementation model</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"><br>
Dear All,<br>
<br>
I agree with the proposal that a call be scheduled to discuss the details of the implementation model. Q&A would be useful. If taken the call into account, the commentary period should be reasonably extended.
<br>
<br>
With respect to the substance of the draft, I welcome its reference to the IDN readiness. "The Clearinghouse will accept trademark<br>
information in its native form (i.e., using the Unicode character set); specific variant character mappings must be handled by the<br>
registry." It seems each Registry are obliged to handle IDN variants issues but are not provided any guidance for handling. It would inevitably result in discrepancies. Also, should a Registry notify the TMCH of its variants management policy so as to ensure
TMCH to implement that policy in authentication and validation? I feel many details are missing and gaps are wide open.
<br>
<br>
<br>
P.33 refers to "Local Caching at Registry", does it refer to new gTLD registries, not local CH providers? If data could be locally cached, why then service provider must be centralized as one?<br>
<br>
Hong<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Dr. Hong Xue<br>
Professor of Law<br>
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)<br>
Beijing Normal University<br>
<a href="http://iipl.org.cn/" target="_blank">http://www.iipl.org.cn/</a><br>
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street<br>
Beijing 100875 China<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Karen Lentz <<a href="mailto:karen.lentz@icann.org" target="_blank">karen.lentz@icann.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D">Keith, thank you for these comments which we are reviewing.
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D">As a reminder to all, the draft implementation model and summary of IAG input are available on the wiki and comments are requested by Friday, 4 May.
I will send out a reminder notice shortly.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D">Best regards,</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D">Karen Lentz</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D">ICANN</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> Keith
Barritt [mailto:<a href="mailto:barritt@fr.com" target="_blank">barritt@fr.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:07 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Karen Lentz; <a href="mailto:tmch-iag@icann.org" target="_blank">tmch-iag@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Keith Barritt comments on draft Trademark Clearinghouse implementation model</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Dear All:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">I appreciate and commend all the hard work that ICANN has put into summarizing input from the IAG and in preparing the draft implementation model. However,
I do have a few comments below on the draft implementation model.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">My primary concern is that there are many instances where the recommendations are somewhat vague and the relative roles of ICANN and the TMC are unclear.
In the absence of specific requirements from ICANN upon which to comment, I am concerned that at some point in the future we will be presented with a “final” document that was not fully vetted by the community For example:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black">Page 4: “Standards ensuring that the Clearinghouse is in the role of ‘fact verifier’ will be in place, limiting the discretaion that can occur in any result, and creating consistency across the process.” While the goal is beyond
question, the question remains as to precisely what those standards will be.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black">Page 10: It is unclear to me if ICANN is proposing to allow entities other than the rights holder to obtain Sunrise registrations. Page 10 refers to the submission of “assignment documentation” if the names do not match, but does
not clarify if licensees can qualify. Section 6.2.3 of the “Trademark Clearinghouse” Section of the final Applicant Guidebook states that the “proposed” Sunrise eligibility requirements include ownership of a mark, so a licensee would not qualify under the
earlier “proposed” requirements, but what is the final rule going to be? As I have commented during the IAG process, I believe only the rights holder as reflected in the TMC’s records should be eligible, for ease of administration and to allow third parties
to challenge undeserved Sunrise registrations. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black">Page 11: “Penalties should be in place to help deter fraudulent submissions.” While we all want to deter fraud, it would be helpful to have an opportunity to comment on specific proposed penalties and their triggers. See also page
17 that states “Penalties for failing to keep the information current can include removal of a record.” The “can include” leaves the full scope of potential penalties unknown. Will ICANN be specifying the penalties, or will the TMC have discretion that is
not subject to community input?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black">Page 12: It is not clear what “equitable treatment” with respect to verifying registration numbers really means. Does it mean that all rights holders should pay the same to have their rights recorded in the TMC, or that rights holders
from jurisdictions where information is not on-line should pay more, since the verification process will be more complex?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black">Page 13: “[I]t is recommended that the TMC verify that the court existed as of the date of the order . . .” Is this really an ICANN “recommendation” or mandate? Will the TMC have discretion on how to verify certain factual information?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black">Page 15: Is the “recommended” declaration a suggestion or mandate to the TMC? Will the TMC have discretion on what the declaration will say?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black">Page 16: Is the “recommendation” that the sample of use be of a particular type a mere suggestion or mandate to the TMC? I also believe that the “without the possibility of confusion” standard is asking the TMC to make a legal judgment
beyond its scope. I understand and agree that the TMC needs some discretion in the particulars of what to accept. However, I note that under U.S. trademark law at least, an application for a business license would not be considered use of the mark, as it
is not use before the public in a trademark sense. Likewise, the appearance of the mark in a license is not public use. Thus, these two examples should be stricken from the list.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black">Page 18: “An authenticated Clearinghouse record should be renewed once per year. . . . The renewal process should not require resubmission or re-authentication of information that was previously provided. . . . [i]t is recommended
that the annual renewal for the record not require submission of a new sample [of proof of use]. However, submission of a curent sample should be required at a longer interval (e.g. every five years). . .” Are these suggestions or mandates to the TMC? Will
the TMC have discretion in how often certain information needs to be renewed?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black">Page 19: “The Clearinghouse provider should publish and supply notice of any grace period procedures that are instituted.” Will ICANN be mandating a grace period, or will the TMC have discretion?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="color:black">Page 20: “A Sunrise code should be unique per mark.” If a “Sunrise code” approach is adopted so that a TMC record can be relied upon only once per Sunrise per new gTLD, I believe this sentence should be “A Sunrise code must be unique
per mark.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Other issues include:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">1)</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black">I continue to believe “verifies” as a single verb suffices in place of “authenticates” and “validates.” With each use of “authenticate” or “validate” we will likely see terms like “authenticate the contact information” and
“validate the proof of use.” Why not just “verify” for both? It has been suggested these are two different activities, but so is checking an elecronic database to verify the trademark registration number and reviewing a paper record to verify a registration’s
expiration date, but we don’t feel compelled to have two verbs for these different activities. I suspect this is a lost cause, but I continue to resist the unnecessary introduction of terms that have specialized meaning when in practice we will likely need
to specify what we mean anyway. I can see the conversations with clients now: <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="color:black">Lawyer: “Your filing has been authenticated by the TMC, but not yet validated.”
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="color:black">Client: “Huh?”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="color:black">Lawyer: “The TMC has verified that your trademark registration data is correct, but hasn’t yet verified your proof of use.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="color:black">Client: “Oh, why didn’t you say so in the first place?!”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">2)</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black">I commend ICANN for abandoning the use of “registrant” to refer to a trademark rights holder who has recorded its rights with the TMC. However, I note that on page 37 the term “registrant” is evidently inadvertently used to
refer to a rights holder that is applying for a Sunrise registration.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">3)</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black">The declaration for submission of information to the TMC referred to in Section 2.1.5 on page 12 should be “to the best of the submitter’s knowledge,” similar to the declaration to accompany proof of use (see page 15).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">4)</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black">I believe more detail should be provided regarding Sunrise eligibility disputes, and particularly regarding proof of use issues. ICANN should specify that a third party can challenge a Sunrise registration based on lack of
use. The role of the TMC and registry in such disputes should be clarified (see pages 42-43). Under Section 6.2.4 of the “Trademark Clearinghouse” section of the AGB, the TMC is to hear challenges regarding Sunrise eligibility requirements, which would include
proof of use.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">5)</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black">Will rights holders be able to submit information to the TMC only for Sunrise, and opt out of the Claims service?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">6)</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black">Should the TMC validate proof of use only when a Sunrise application is filed to reduce the burden of validation of records for which proof of use may never be an issue, or is it unrealistic to expect the TMC to be able to validate
fewer records at Sunrise but on short notice?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">7)</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black">Can a rights holder submit proof of use after a trademark is recorded in the TMC, in anticipation of a particular Sunrise filing?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Keith Barritt<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"><img border="0" width="30" height="28" id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image004.jpg@01CD2C74.07C5E290" alt="Description: Description: Description: Description: http://fishnet.fr.com/C15/Marketing%20Department%20Policies/Fish%20Logos/frlogo.bmp">Fish
& Richardson P.C.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">1425 K Street N.W.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Suite 1100<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Washington, DC 20005<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Phone:
<a href="tel:%28202%29%20626-6433" target="_blank">(202) 626-6433</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Fax:
<a href="tel:%28202%29%20783-2331" target="_blank">(202) 783-2331</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"><a href="http://www.fr.com" target="_blank">www.fr.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><a href="mailto:tmch-iag-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">tmch-iag-bounces@icann.org</a><a href="mailto:[mailto:tmch-iag-bounces@icann.org]" target="_blank">[mailto:tmch-iag-bounces@icann.org]</a><b>On
Behalf Of </b>Karen Lentz<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 13, 2012 8:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:tmch-iag@icann.org" target="_blank">tmch-iag@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Tmch-iag] IAG summary and draft Clearinghouse implementation model</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Dear colleagues,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Please see attached 2 documents: (1) a draft implementation model for the Trademark Clearinghouse (reflecting many of the inputs from the IAG), and (2)
a summary report compiling the feedback received from the IAG process. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">These documents are for your review and comment – please submit any comments to the list by
<b>Friday, 4 May</b> so that we can also compile these and take them into account.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">We do not have any additional IAG calls scheduled currently, although we can schedule a call, or an open webinar to walk through the model, if there is
interest in doing so.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">These materials have also been posted on the wiki at
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/cctrdmrkclrnghsiag/Documents" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/display/cctrdmrkclrnghsiag/Documents</a>. We look forward to your comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="color:black"> </span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Karen Lentz<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">ICANN<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:black">****************************************************************************************************************************<br>
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
destroy all copies of the original message. <br>
<br>
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.(FR08-i203d)<br>
****************************************************************************************************************************
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
tmch-iag mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tmch-iag@icann.org">tmch-iag@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tmch-iag" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tmch-iag</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"><br>
<br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. Any distribution
or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>