[Tmch-iag] 30 Nov 11 call - Chat Transcript

[Karen Lentz]

  Karen Lentz:*6 to mute / *7 to unmute
  Philip Corwin:Good evening, morning, whatever...
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:will licensees and assignees be allowed to submit deposits?
  Jeff Neuman:Matt - You should follow through on the fraud example....what would that mean for someone to take the code fraudulently?
  Jeff Neuman:(in other words...so what).  If somone uses the code to get a Sunrise, a dispute process could easily handle the return of the name to the "true"trademark owner
  eckhaus:Same question as Jeff Neuman. So what if it is stolen or copied?
  William Yang:@Jeff, while dispute resolution would address the issue ultimately, implementing reasonable security addresses not only fruad and abuse, but also repudiation and the need for reissue.
  Philip Corwin:The Clearinghouse is for marks, not mark holders -- how does giving an authentication code to a mark holder demonstrate the validity of the multiple marks they are claiming?
  Jeff Neuman:Of course reasonable security measures need to be implemented.
  Jeff Neuman:But in .us if someone fraudulently tried to register a .us domain name during Sunrise...if we got a letter from the true trademark owner stating they did not register it, then we would have taken the domain name away from the person that got the registration and given it (for free) to the actual trademark owner
  richard tindal:I agree with Jeff       This sort of fraud,  should it happen, is relatively easily resolved
  Jeff Neuman:[NOTE - this never did happen in .us]
  Kristina Rosette:@Tom:  But, if theTM owner has multiple deposited and authenticated records for a particular mark, doesn't that match process impose a greater burden on the registry?
  Kristina Rosette:Could you have primary and secondary codes?  Primary is for the trademark owner and the secondary is for the mark.  So, ICANN would get one primary code as the TM owner and a secondary code for each of ICANN, IANA, and ICANN accredited registrar.
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:the tmch would do the logging
  Keith Barritt:Keith Barritt
  Kristina Rosette:Don't get me wrong. I have no desire to create a scenario in which a trademark owner has 1000+ codes.   However, you'll have to know exactly which TM record was relied upon for the Sunrise registration in order to determine whether a Sunrise challenge is appropriate (and, if memory serves, registries have build in a Sunrise challenge process).
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:@kr, let the tmch figure this out and log it
  Marc Trachtenberg:@Tom:  But that's the whole question - how would the tmch figure out which registation is being relied upon?
  Jeff Neuman:Payment to the Clearinghouseshould have nothing to do with the registry or registrar
  Jeff Neuman:Should be direct to the Clearinghouse
  Kristina Rosette:Agree with Jeff that payment should be directly to Clearinghouse
  Philip Corwin:It's about the integrity of the database -- and the database is of autheticated marks, not authenticated mark holders.
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:@marc,  is the concern that a tm owner could have multiple mark sin the tmch that match the requested domain name?
  Marc Trachtenberg:@Tom: exactly
  Jeff Neuman:Remember, registering with the Clearinghouse has nothing to do with a domain name registration
  Kristina Rosette:@Tom: and, depending on the eligibility criteria, some of those may be qualifying and others wouldn't
  Jeff Neuman:A TM Owner may go to the Clearinghouse but never register a domain name in any TLD
  Jeff Neuman:they may just want to be there for TM claims
  Kristina Rosette:@Jeff:  and I have a beautiful bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale. :-)
  Jeff Neuman:@KR (Theoretical of course :))
  Jeff Neuman:More likely a TM Owner may only register a Sunrise in 10 out of 1000 new TLDs
  Jeff Neuman:(Better :))
  Scott Harlan:Is there any benefit to entering into the TMCH more than one identical trademark registration from different jurisdictions?
  Jeff Neuman:@Scott - It may with some registries like City TLDs or others that are more jurisdictional
  Jeff Neuman:For example, a .berlin may give preference to marks registered in Germany
  Marc Trachtenberg:@Scott:  yes as there may be jurisdeictional or other requirements depending on the TLD
  Jeff Neuman:@Chris - yes..what you said sounds right
  richard tindal:Chris - that makes sense
  richard tindal:Jeff - or BERLIN may ONLY allow German marks,  correct?
  Kristina Rosette:@Chris:  good point, but we'll need to identify what that other information may be.
  John McElwaine:This is the right discussion:  What is the purpose of the token to verify the identity of the domain name applicant or a trademark clearinghouse record.
  Jeff Neuman:@Richard - That is my understanding, but that would assume that BERLIN has a policy only allowing registrations from persons/entities in Germany
  richard tindal:Jeff - yes
  Marc Trachtenberg:@John:  I agree that is the question
  Jeff Neuman:I would think that if .BERLIN only allowed German Trademarks, but allowed registrations during general availability to everyone, that would be a problem
  richard tindal:Sunrise policies consistent with general registration policies
  Jeff Neuman:yes
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:@kieth so the applicant would need a record id too?
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:@marc.  i agree.  all that should be needed is the contact token and the domain name requested.  the tmch can figure out the rest and log it
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:if a tld has special restrictions, then the tmch can be aware of these too.
  Marc Trachtenberg:@Tom: Sorry but I disagree with you.  How will the tmch just "fgure out the rest and log it".  It could depend what mark is being relied upon for challenge or other purposes
  Kristina Rosette:I can guarantee that my SME clients are going to want to hand off all Clearinghouse responsibilities to me.
  Jeff Neuman:@KR - You want to do Neustar's marks - you have bulk pricing :)
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:@marc,  if  multile records qualify, then they all could be logged
  Chris Wright:You cant expect that you will be able to register a domain name based on the fact that somewhere in your portfolio that matches the name. If you have multiple similar trademarks you need to identify which mark you are using to demonstrate your eligibility for the name
  Keith Barritt:I am proposing one owner I.D. issued by the TMC, and then the trademark owner identifies the registration (or court validated, etc.) mark they are relying upon for the Sunrise registration.  Issuing a separate code for each mark in the TMC would be a burden
  Marc Trachtenberg:@Tom: so if all are logged tehre is still the question of which one is being relied upon
  Kristina Rosette:Is the issue w/r/t agents identifying what categories of persons/entities would be eligible and how that eligibility is demonstrated?
  Chris Wright:agents are not an issue, trademark holder provides auth information to agent agent submits request on behalf of client using the auth code that the client provided the agent
  Marc Trachtenberg:@Keith:  you don;t think it is  a burden to idnetify which trademark you are relyng upon from a 1000 registration portfolio for each sunrise domain you are applying for?
  Chris Wright:in some cases the agent will also put the record in the clearing house for the client in which case they will have access to auth code as well
  Jeff Neuman:@Chris - right. But there would be no way for the Clearinghouse to know that an agent is truly an agent duly appointed by the TM owner
  Chris Wright:@Marc: you have to do that anyway, every sunrise in the past has worked like that
  Chris Wright:@jeff, the clearing house would need to request enough information from the agent to verify that but tbh thats for the TMCH to figure out
  Jeff Neuman:But this is not a huge issue, because in the end if the agent wasnt authroized, it wouldnt matter....the TM owner still gets the benefit of the Clearinghouse entry
  Kristina Rosette:@Chris:  It's one thing to look up the code for the specific registration and enter it and and entirely different thing to have to enter the country, mark, registration number, registration date, etc.
  Keith Barritt:No, I don't think it's a burden -- the trademark owner should be able to quickly identify which of its registered marks satisfies the Sunriseeligibility requirements
  Chris Wright:@kristina thats my problem, what is the information that the authcode gives access to, that needs to be defined
  Marc Trachtenberg:@Kieth:  sure - when they have 20 registrations...
  Kristina Rosette:@Chris:  agree
  Kristina Rosette:to the potential registrant . .. .
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:@keith,  not the tm clients I get...
  Marc Trachtenberg:@Kristina/Chris: agree as well
  Chris Wright:@tom: so your proposal is a trademark holder applies for a registration based on a portofolio of thousands of trademarks and that the registry then needs to figure out if there is one trademark in amoungst those that matches the domain name being applied for AND meets the eligibility criteria? Wouldnt the trademark owner need to do that before hand anyway, otherwise how do they know they are not wasting their money applying for a domain name they will not even get?
  Marc Trachtenberg:@Chris:  Exactly!
  Chris Wright:@tom cont. and certaingly I wouldnt want to take the chance that the registry missed on eof them.
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:@chris, no, I would not rely on the registry to figure this out.
  Keith Barritt:Even for TM owners with 1000 marks in the TMC, how hard can it be to identify a registration that establishes Sunrise eligibility?  Seems easier to do this than to keep track of separate "authcodes" per mark in the TMC
  Kristina Rosette:@Jeff:  hate to put you on the spot, but did you all have verification of transmission of IP Claims notices and, if so, how did you do it?
  Jeff Neuman:@KR - Yes, we had verification that the claims e-mail (which is the way we did it) was sent and that the registrant agreed to move forward.
  Chris Wright:@tom: then the trademakr owner (or someone acting on their behalf) would need to do that before hand and indicate which mark they were using
  Jeff Neuman:But they did that directly with the registry
  Jeff Neuman:and not with a registrar
  Marc Trachtenberg:@Kieth: You have to keep track of which registratiosn were successfully submitted to the tmch anyway so it is only an incremental burden to add the token to the registration rcord in your database.  Then, when you apply for a domain name in a particular sunrise, you need to go through your database to verufy that you have an eligible mark, so yuo just get the token at the same time - no additional burden
  Jeff Neuman:the registry generated the notices and sent them out.
  Jeff Neuman:By clicking on a link that we hosted, the applicant proceeded
  Jeff Neuman:{But there were lots of issues with using e-mail]
  richard tindal:Jeff  -per your May submission we're looking for somenting simpler than BIZ Claims
  Keith Barritt:I'd rather not have additional database of codes-per-mark-in-the-TMC to keep track of
  eckhaus:Agree - one set of wording for all registrars
  eckhaus:we registrars are not smart enough to come up with our own language
  Marc Trachtenberg:@Kieth: Not an additional database - and additional column/field in your existing database.  You already have to/should add one to record submission to the clearinghouse anyway
  Jeff Neuman:@Chris - Yes
  Kristina Rosette:Now IO
  Kristina Rosette:oops.  Now I'm confused.  I thought the Guidebook had the notice that has to be sent to the potential registrant.
  Karen Lentz:yes, it does
  eckhaus:what does "sent" mean?
  Jeff Neuman:@KR - that was the model form (of course it is only the English version)
  richard tindal:Chris - ideally both realtime and offline are possible -- at the Registries election
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:change "sent" to "display"
  Jeff Neuman:@Chris - Yes, it can be either of those models
  Kristina Rosette:But, if we can tinker with it, there is some language in it that will likely irritate some GAC members when/if they focus on it (e.g., "not all trademark jurisdictions review trademark applications closely").
  Jeff Neuman:Both
  John McElwaine:@Jeff:  I agree
  richard tindal:Chris - good points
  richard tindal:offline is, however, a bit of a nightmare
  Chris Wright:offline is a mssive nightmare for everyone
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:if offline is permitted, then it willl become the default
  Kristina Rosette:@Jeff E.:  by sent, I meant transmit or display
  Francisco Arias:real time can be a nightmare of load for the TMCH, unless there is some sort of caching in the registries
  Chris Wright:agree, but there are loads of technical work arounds for this
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:offline notices let registrars off the hook.
  Kristina Rosette:I'm not sure I understand your question, Jeff E.
  James Mitchell:@Tom - not really - the potential registrant may disagree and demand their money back
  Kristina Rosette:@Jeff E.:  yes, basically.
  Chris Wright:@jeff : with respect to your assertion that sunrise and landrush dont need realtime, that depends on when notices have to be accepted. the notice could be displayed to someone when they register their intent to register the name, surely BEFORE they go to auction they need to be warned, not after  they win the auction, so why not warn them when they submit there want to register
  richard tindal:Jeff  -its a "proceed if you are comfortable your registration will not infirnge this mark" notice
  Francisco Arias:@Chris: do you think the realtime model without caching is doable at all?
  Chris Wright:at a cost to the clearinghouse yes, however there are many better models that dont require that
  Jeff Neuman:@Chris - I agree that they should be notified prior to an auction; would be foolish for a registry to do it afterwards.  But registrants do not necessarily go to a registrar prior to an auction.  I have seen some auction implementations where they go straight to a registry and then if they win, the select a registrar to register it
  Jeff Neuman:So in that case, the registry may have to display the notices
  Chris Wright:@francisco: its actually all dependent on how you define match as if tld variant tables come into the mix the clearinghouse cant determine match
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:@chris,  why not?
  James Mitchell:@Jeff - the entity accepting the registration should present the notice, whether that is a registry, registrar, aution provider it does not matter...
  Chris Wright:@tom: becasue of IDNs
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:the tmch needs to support idns too
  Jeff Neuman:@James - what do you mean by
  Jeff Neuman:"accepting the registration"
  Jeff Neuman:Winning a name at auction does not equal a registration
  richard tindal:Im not following P5      what 'check' does it refer to?
  Jeff Neuman:But like Chris said, you would want to present the claims notice prior to the auction
  Chris Wright:@tom: 'matching' IDNs is a complex issue and involves the choices made with respect to variant codepoints. Each TLD makes these choices independent of the others so there is no one table that says chinese codepoint X is consider the same as chinese code point Y
  Kristina Rosette:@richard:  who actually pings the Clearinghouse, I think.
  James Mitchell:@Jeff - the entity that is accepting the intent to regiseter the domain name, probably collecting contact information etc
  richard tindal:Ahhh     I think registry would check and advise registrar thru EPP
  Jeff Neuman:Contact information to the auction provider could easily be different than the contact information for the domain registration
  Jeff Neuman:@James - lots of complexities in a seemlingly simple concept
  James Mitchell:Jeff - then I would say that you have other issues
  Jeff Neuman:@Karen - When does the west coast of the US get the midnight time slot
  eckhaus:Never
  Jeff Neuman:exactly
  richard tindal:Karen/ Matt  - Good work.  we're making progress
  Karen Lentz:@Jeff - we get 5am next time
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:good night everyone
  Karen Lentz:Thanks to all
  Matt Wald:Thanks Richard