November 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Meeting to discuss TMCH Implementation as well as possible changed to the TM protections
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 17, 2012

Nov. 17, 2012

As you are aware, a meeting was held in Brussels several weeks ago to discuss implementation issues for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). The meeting included representatives of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, but not At-Large. On Thursday and Friday of this week, a follow-on meeting was held in Los Angeles. In addition to a discussion of many of the technical issues related to the TMCH, a full day was spend discussing a list of issues that had been presented to ICANN by the GNSO Business and Intellectual Property Constituencies (http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/ncsg-to-icann-01nov12-en.pdf) This time At-Large was represented (unfortunately only remotely as no travel funding was provided). I had the honour of participating along with Evan. The first day on the BC/IPC issues was both interesting and productive. The intent was: 1. To fully understand what it was that the BC and IPC were asking for. The original document was not particularly clear, and in fact, the BC/IPC have spent the weeks following Toronto fleshing out their ideas. 2. To understand whether these issues were in fact just implementation (as the BC/IPC) believed, or Policy, which should be addressed by GNSO Policy processes. The issue has been much discussed within ICANN, but the difference has never been formally addressed before. Staff were charged with starting to develop a methodology for making such decisions in the future. Although the work is still preliminary, it was used to analyze the more controversial of the BC/IPC proposals, and the outcome matched that of the discussions within ALAC. They were all deemed to be Policy and thus required GNSO action to formally change the status quo (a relief to some at the table, and troubling to others). 3. To brainstorm the issues raised by the BC/IPC and see if any solutions could be found to address the issues that concerned them which at the same time might be acceptable to the other stakeholders. After a rather harrowing day (12 solid hours, followed by another 2 hours on Friday) the result was a strawman proposal. The proposal completely pleased none of the people involved, which some people say is a good measure of a reasonable compromise. Regardless, it is a good start for more traditional community-based discussions which now have to happen. ALAC's first position was that we would prefer to not have new policy changes in the new TLD program at this late date. However we also did look at the individual issues as discussed in a message I sent earlier this week. The resultant strawman proposal actually fits in moderately well with the positions that ALAC took. Of course, this is not yet a formal policy and there are many details to be developed. This is perhaps not surprising, as many of the ALAC positions to protect innocent Internet users coincide well with TM holders desire to prevent cyber-squatting and fraud, and the over-reaching that some attribute to TM holders (that is, wanting protections far an above those granted by the TM itself) were to some extent held in control. I have to note that this type of focus group is not an unknown way to try to bridge widely disparate positions, but it is a very uncommon one in ICANN, and one that some people have said violates the bottom up multi-stakeholder model of ICANN. It does bear some similarity to the STI group which many herald as one of the more effective ICANN policy efforts. It also re-opened issues that the community (well, part of the community including At-Large) had thought or hoped were closed issues. Whether it was an effective move or not history will tell. One of the measures that I have is how quickly we can convene a more formal ICANN process to refine and actually approve a policy coming out of this proposal. After Toronto, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé had said that he considers the TMCH to be a critical issue and would personally oversee its implementation. True to his word, he personally ran the 14 hours of meetings. It was interesting! I will elaborate (as perhaps will Evan) more in the coming days on some of the high and low points of the meeting, but this will have to do for the moment. Today I was on the call for over 8 hours, and yesterday including a GNSO meeting starting at 6 am and one other WG, I totaled 15 hours of teleconferences. So it is perhaps time for a bit of rest and relaxation. You can find the initial description of outcomes of the meeting at http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/. Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Baku outcomes
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Nov. 16, 2012

Nov. 16, 2012

Hello, everyone. The report for the APRALO Workshop at the UN Internet Governance Forum 2012 in Baku has been posted to the wiki ( https://community.icann.org/display/APRALO/BAKU+APRALO+Reports) and pasted below. Best regards, Rinalia *ICANN APRALO Workshop Report* IGF 2012 Workshop #122 (9 November 2012) *New gTLDs: Implications and Potential for Community Engagement, Advocacy and Development* Organizers: ICANN APRALO & the DotKids Foundation Moderator: Rinalia Abdul Rahim, ICANN At Large Advisory Committee Remote Moderator & Time Keeper: Bianca Ho, NetMission Ambassador *Panelists:* - Edmon Chung, DotAsia Organisation, Asia Pacific - Yannis Li, DotKids Foundation, Asia - Andrei Kolesnikov, Coordination Centre for TLD RU, Russia - Scott Seitz, DotGay, USA - Fouad Bajwa, Internet Policy Group at Oi2, Pakistan - Olga Cavali, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina - Cheryl Langdon-Orr, .au Domain Administration Ltd, Australia In the pending expansion of the Top Level Domain Space, ICANN has received close to 2000 new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) applications. Of note is the low number of applications categorized as “community”-related (i.e., 84 community applications representing 4% of total applications). Various contributing factors have been discussed to explain the phenomenon such as the problem of general awareness attributed to insufficient outreach efforts. For communities, especially those from the developing world, few measures have been taken to facilitate their participation and engagement. There is still a lack of awareness and understanding about the value of new gTLDs for communities and there are also specific challenges and barriers that serve to limit community adoption. The workshop explored the following questions towards identifying the opportunities and challenges presented by new gTLDs for communities: 1. What is the value proposition of new TLDs for communities (i.e., the opportunities)? 2. What are the challenges in the uptake and sustainability of new TLDs for communities? 3. What type of support is needed to increase uptake and ensure sustainability? 4. What are the unique issues that apply for cross-border communities? The workshop discussion involved approximately 30 people and featured perspectives from representatives of communities that have applied for new gTLDs as well as views from regions around the world. Highlights and main points are as follows: *Opportunities/Value Proposition of new GTLDs for Communities* - Raises awareness about the community (i.e., makes communities visible with the identity that they choose); - Builds the community (i.e., allows the community to connect and to be found by others who share the same or similar identity, which enhances community ties and network); - Supports community advocacy (i.e., raises awareness about the community’s interests, issues and concerns), which has implications for mobilization of support/resources; - Supports the safety needs of vulnerable communities (e.g., children and the gay community); - Allows for the development and provision of services specifically for the community and in particular those with special needs; and - Surplus revenue can be channeled to support community-development via Foundations. *Adoption/Uptake Challenges for Communities* - Complicated application process with high start-up cost (technical, marketing, advertising, community consultations, etc.); - Application process requires community endorsement, which is difficult to obtain without substantial prior engagement, consultation and mobilization of support; - Information about financial assistance was not widely circulated and financial support requirement is premised on demonstration of financial stability, which defeats the purpose of financial assistance; - Community-names taken up by companies, which requires dispute resolution; and - Availability of Second Level Domain Name opportunities. *Support Needed for Sustainability* - Availability of local registrars/partners to distribute names - vertical integration as a solution for this appears to be controversial; - Strategies for dealing with abuse of community domains; and - Partnerships that bring in critical components needed for successful application and implementation (technical expertise, financial support, outreach support, sustainable business models, etc), before, during and post delegation of TLDs. *Unique Issues for Cross-Border Communities* - Difficulty in identifying the boundary of cross-border communities that are global; and - Difficulty in obtaining financial support for community applications that are trying to serve a global community of people that reside in both developed and developing countries *Recommendations for a new gTLD Remedial Round Targeted at Developing Countries and Under-Served Communities* - Initiate an experimental fast track round with approximately 25 new gTLDs; - Revise the application process and guidebook based on weaknesses already identified by the community; - Provide for a sunset policy and process where new gTLDs can fail gracefully; - Adjust the requirement for financial stability in evaluating the need for financial support; and - Ensure that the community evaluation process allows for community consultation and mobilization to happen after the application has been approved. END On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net>wrote: > HI Everyone > > With Baku over, the agenda for the next APRALO meeting includes a look > back at Baku. We don't have a lot of time in that teleconference, so it > would be really helpful if those of you who attended could write brief > notes on what happened - what was good (and not so good), what issues came > up that we should be aware of and what lessons are there to be learned - > particularly for the Beijing meeting and APRALO showcase. > > Matt - could you please set up a workspace for people to put their notes > in please and circulate the link > > Thanks everyone for taking the time. > > Holly > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >

1 0

Kurt Pritz resigns
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 15, 2012

Nov. 15, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15nov12-en.htm -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

Fwd: Chair's Summary of High Level Meeting October 15th, 2012
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Nov. 15, 2012

Nov. 15, 2012

Dear all, please find enclosed the message from the GAC Chair with her summary report of the GAC High Level Meeting. The involvement in this meeting of many in our community has helped raise ICANN's profile with senior government officials of many countries and shown the true diversity that our community is built on. In particular, I would like to thank Yrjö Länsipuro and Jean-Jacques Subrenat for being our Liaisons to the event's organisers and our permanent representatives in the set of events that took place. I would also like to thank members of the ALAC Executive Committee for their work in reaching out to governments during the lunch that was organised on the day. They thought they were going to a lunch - they got put to work and their food got cold while they were interacting with guests. But my biggest thanks go to Heather Dryden and her Team for organising this day's events. In the current political climate, it is important that senior officials improve their understanding of the ICANN community and the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. This day brought many welcome bricks to the edifice and I am pleased that the ALAC was invited to take part in it. Best regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Chair's Summary of High Level Meeting October 15th, 2012 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:13:12 -0500 From: <Heather.Dryden(a)*.ca> To: <ocl(a)*.com>, <lesley(a)*.org.uk>, <stephane.vangelder(a)*.com>, <paf(a)*.se>, <jcurran(a)*.net> CC: <jonathan.robinson(a)*.com>, <alice(a)*.org>, <maria.hall(a)*.se>, <LIM_Choon_Sai(a)*.sg>, <hackshawt(a)*.tt>, <thomas.schneider(a)*.ch>, <Peter.Nettlefold(a)*.au> Dear SO and AC chairs, I am pleased to send you the attached Chair's Summary report of the High Level Meeting from 15 October, 2012 in Toronto, and would like to offer asincere thank you for meeting with senior officials attending the HLM. These efforts helped ensure a very successful meeting. Please distribute accordingly. The document has been sent for translation into the UN languages and Portuguese and has also been circulated to the ICANN Board. The Summary will also be posted to the GAC website. Best regards, Heather Dryden Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee

3 2

ALAC Response to IDN Variant TLD Program - Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Nov. 14, 2012

Nov. 14, 2012

Dear members of the ALAC, At-Large and IDN WG, * Re: Label Generation Rules (LGR) Process document (Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels)* A draft response to the document specified above has been prepared and posted at the following At-Large Policy Development wiki page for your review and comments: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=36212771 PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU COMMENT BY END OF MONDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2012! The ALAC will vote on the response immediately after the 19th so that the IDN Program Team can take it into consideration as they are finalizing the document based on comments received at the end of the month. Note: Though the comment period is over, we are able to channel this response directly to the VIP Program Team based on an agreement in Toronto. Thank you. Best regards, Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:42 AM Subject: ICANN News Alert -- IDN Variant TLD Program - Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels To: rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-24sep12-en.htm ____________________________________ IDN Variant TLD Program – Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels 24 September 2012 Comment Period Opens on 24 September 2012 Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): The Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant TLD Program deals with the variant form of top-level domain (TLD) names in different scripts. To enable IDN Variant TLDs in the root, it is necessary to establish the Label Generation Rules (LGR) for the DNS Root Zone. The Label Generation Rules Process is a way to develop and maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in respect of IDNA labels. The process must be in place to enable the delegation and management of IDN Variant TLDs. The Label Generation Rules (LGR) Process project team, consisting of global volunteers with expert consultants and ICANN staff, has produced the first public draft of the LGR Process document. The team now seeks community input on the proposed process and the principles that support it. The Label Generation Rules (LGR) Process document will be discussed at a public session at the ICANN meeting in Toronto in October 2012. The session schedule will be available at ICANN Toronto Meeting Website ( http://toronto45.icann.org/full-schedule) Comments received in this Public Comment period as well as community feedback during the Toronto meeting will be incorporated into the final draft and published for second round of Public Comment in November 2012. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/lgr-procedure-24sep12-en.htm ____________________________________ This message was sent to rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Manage Your Subscription: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=20657474&l=6333&s=R4TD&m=89…

1 0

Meeting in LA to discuss TM protection issues
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 13, 2012

Nov. 13, 2012

NOTE: THIS MESSAGE IS LONG, BUT WE ONLY HAVE A FEW DAYS IN WHICH TO ACT. In Toronto, The IPC and BC presented a list of suggested rights protection mechanisms to ICANN. The document can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-pritz-17oct12-en.pdf. The substance was the following 8 points. 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. Note that these statements are rather vague in some cases, but no further details have been provided. A meeting to iron out differences and clarify issues on the TMCH was held in Brussels about 2 weeks ago. The outcomes can be found at http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable-trademark-clea…. There will be a follow-up meeting in Los Angeles to discuss, (perhaps among other things), the BBC/IPC proposals. My understanding is that I an likely Evan will be invited to participate (remotely since no travel funding is being provided). Following discussions with Evan and Olivier as well as Kathy Kleiman and Robin gross from NCUC, here is what I believe the current positions to be supported by ALAC to be. IF YOU FEEL THAT ANY OF THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED, PLEASE SPEAK UP QUICKLY. ========================== Our overall position is that we would prefer to not make any substantive changes at this late date, and particularly not ones that can reasonably be considered policy. This is said with the full understanding that throughout the new gTLD process, parts of the community have often considered things that they want changed to be "implementation", and things that they do not want changed to be "policy". In fact, the entire STI discussion (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf) was deemed to be one of implementation and investigating the "policy implications" of the TMCH and URS. Note that some of the proposals are clearly not "Policy" from a GNSO point of view. That being said, it is possible that change will occur based on the issues raised by the BC/IPC, and the ALAC needs to consider the specific issues. 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. ALAC has no strong feelings on this.My understanding is that it may already have been resolved during the Brussels meeting. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. A TM Claim sends a notice to a potential registrant that the name they are registering possible overlaps with a TM's term. It does not stop the registration, but asks that the registrant confirm that their use is legitimate and does not violate TM rights (since TM rights are specific to the type of service/product offered and a geographic local, this is quite possible). The STI report said that Post-Launch Claims are not required. The AG says that at a minimum, Claims must be used for 60 days following general registration availability. Since neither of these terms are fully defined, it is not clear if these two requirements conflict or are both simultaneously possible. One of the outcomes of the Brussels meeting is to firm up some definitions, so perhaps this will become clear. That notwithstanding, the ALAC issued a minority report to the STI saying that with some specific reservations, we supported ongoing TM Claims. So we are basically supportive of the request. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. This seems like a motherhood statement and as such ALAC has not problem with it. The only reservation is to the exact meaning of "increase its usefulness". If this is implying substantive change, we do need to consider it on its merits. That being said, the ALAC in its minority statement had supported the concept of allowing a URS claimant who was successful to have the domain transferred to them similar to what is allowed following a successful UDRP. The concept of ICANN underwriting the URS for some period of time was originally suggested by me, so I support it in concept. The ALAC has never discussed it. At this point, it looks like there will be one or more URS providers who can do it for the required fee without subsidization. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. The ALAC in its minority statement did support allowing strings to be registered in the TMCH which included its TM term in conjunction with terms related to its service/products (ie Ford-Trucks). So we *might* be supportive of that part of the request. However, the term "prevent" is onerous, even with "appropriate safeguards". We would suggest a position that this is a substantive change and should not be done at this time, but rather considered as in a future policy process. Furthermore, it is something whose value will not be significantly lower if it is somewhat delayed. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. The ALAC certainly supports this concept and our presumption has been that this will be included in the next RAA. To the extent that this BC/IPC request increases the pressue on ICANN to ensure that this happens, we support it. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. This is already being discussed in the context of the new RAA. In particular, registrars believe that they should not be at a competitive disadvantage because some registrars stay on the old RAA and thus have lower costs (such as those associated with verification). From an ICANN point of view, there will certainly be sufficient compliance issues associated with new gTLDs that having all registrars who market them on the current RAA can only be viewed as good. ALAC strongly supports this. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. It is unclear exactly what this one means. Certainly ALAC supports any position that strengthens compliance enforcement. The reference to "Standard applications" is unclear. It *may* mean that like Community TLDs, standard (ie non-Community) TLDs should be required to honour the use of the TLD described in the application (currently there is no such requirement - they can apply for a TLD string for one purpose and change that purpose completely on implementation). ALAC has generally advocated such a requirement, although it seems like it is a bit late to impose it on applicants who have applied under the current rules. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. This is a possibly interesting new TM protection mechanism, and is a probably a subset of the "TM along with related terms" statement that we made in our minority report. Nevertheless, it is a substantive change, and like item 4, should be the subject of a policy process prior to implementation. Alan (and Evan)

5 6

RE : Meeting in LA to discuss TM protection issues
by jjs.global Nov. 13, 2012

Nov. 13, 2012

Alan & Evan, I follow your rationale and support the positions suggested by you. Jean-Jacques. Envoyé depuis un mobile SamsungAlan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> a écrit :NOTE: THIS MESSAGE IS LONG, BUT WE ONLY HAVE A FEW DAYS IN WHICH TO ACT. In Toronto, The IPC and BC presented a list of suggested rights protection mechanisms to ICANN. The document can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-pritz-17oct12-en.pdf. The substance was the following 8 points. 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. Note that these statements are rather vague in some cases, but no further details have been provided. A meeting to iron out differences and clarify issues on the TMCH was held in Brussels about 2 weeks ago. The outcomes can be found at http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable-trademark-clea…. There will be a follow-up meeting in Los Angeles to discuss, (perhaps among other things), the BBC/IPC proposals. My understanding is that I an likely Evan will be invited to participate (remotely since no travel funding is being provided). Following discussions with Evan and Olivier as well as Kathy Kleiman and Robin gross from NCUC, here is what I believe the current positions to be supported by ALAC to be. IF YOU FEEL THAT ANY OF THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED, PLEASE SPEAK UP QUICKLY. ========================== Our overall position is that we would prefer to not make any substantive changes at this late date, and particularly not ones that can reasonably be considered policy. This is said with the full understanding that throughout the new gTLD process, parts of the community have often considered things that they want changed to be "implementation", and things that they do not want changed to be "policy". In fact, the entire STI discussion (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf) was deemed to be one of implementation and investigating the "policy implications" of the TMCH and URS. Note that some of the proposals are clearly not "Policy" from a GNSO point of view. That being said, it is possible that change will occur based on the issues raised by the BC/IPC, and the ALAC needs to consider the specific issues. 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. ALAC has no strong feelings on this.My understanding is that it may already have been resolved during the Brussels meeting. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. A TM Claim sends a notice to a potential registrant that the name they are registering possible overlaps with a TM's term. It does not stop the registration, but asks that the registrant confirm that their use is legitimate and does not violate TM rights (since TM rights are specific to the type of service/product offered and a geographic local, this is quite possible). The STI report said that Post-Launch Claims are not required. The AG says that at a minimum, Claims must be used for 60 days following general registration availability. Since neither of these terms are fully defined, it is not clear if these two requirements conflict or are both simultaneously possible. One of the outcomes of the Brussels meeting is to firm up some definitions, so perhaps this will become clear. That notwithstanding, the ALAC issued a minority report to the STI saying that with some specific reservations, we supported ongoing TM Claims. So we are basically supportive of the request. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. This seems like a motherhood statement and as such ALAC has not problem with it. The only reservation is to the exact meaning of "increase its usefulness". If this is implying substantive change, we do need to consider it on its merits. That being said, the ALAC in its minority statement had supported the concept of allowing a URS claimant who was successful to have the domain transferred to them similar to what is allowed following a successful UDRP. The concept of ICANN underwriting the URS for some period of time was originally suggested by me, so I support it in concept. The ALAC has never discussed it. At this point, it looks like there will be one or more URS providers who can do it for the required fee without subsidization. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. The ALAC in its minority statement did support allowing strings to be registered in the TMCH which included its TM term in conjunction with terms related to its service/products (ie Ford-Trucks). So we *might* be supportive of that part of the request. However, the term "prevent" is onerous, even with "appropriate safeguards". We would suggest a position that this is a substantive change and should not be done at this time, but rather considered as in a future policy process. Furthermore, it is something whose value will not be significantly lower if it is somewhat delayed. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. The ALAC certainly supports this concept and our presumption has been that this will be included in the next RAA. To the extent that this BC/IPC request increases the pressue on ICANN to ensure that this happens, we support it. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. This is already being discussed in the context of the new RAA. In particular, registrars believe that they should not be at a competitive disadvantage because some registrars stay on the old RAA and thus have lower costs (such as those associated with verification). From an ICANN point of view, there will certainly be sufficient compliance issues associated with new gTLDs that having all registrars who market them on the current RAA can only be viewed as good. ALAC strongly supports this. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. It is unclear exactly what this one means. Certainly ALAC supports any position that strengthens compliance enforcement. The reference to "Standard applications" is unclear. It *may* mean that like Community TLDs, standard (ie non-Community) TLDs should be required to honour the use of the TLD described in the application (currently there is no such requirement - they can apply for a TLD string for one purpose and change that purpose completely on implementation). ALAC has generally advocated such a requirement, although it seems like it is a bit late to impose it on applicants who have applied under the current rules. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. This is a possibly interesting new TM protection mechanism, and is a probably a subset of the "TM along with related terms" statement that we made in our minority report. Nevertheless, it is a substantive change, and like item 4, should be the subject of a policy process prior to implementation. Alan (and Evan) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

GNSO Comment on WHOIS Review Team Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2012

Nov. 9, 2012

Finally, a GNSO comment to the Board on the WHOIS RT Report. Bruce thanked the Council for getting it to the Board in time for the Board meeting on WHOIS which is scheduled for tomorrow. Alan >From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] >Sent: 07 November 2012 12:10 >To: Steve Crocker (steve(a)shinkuro.com) >Cc: 'secretary(a)icann.org' >Subject: WHOIS Review Team Final Report > >Dr Steve Crocker >Chair, ICANN Board of Directors > >Dear Steve, > >Please see the attached regarding the GNSO and the WHOIS Review Team >Final Report. > >Please also accept my apologies for the timing of this response >relative to your meeting tomorrow. > >Yours sincerely, > > > >Jonathan Robinson >Chair >ICANN GNSO Council

3 2

Fwd: [council] Regarding Board meeting on WHOIS
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2012

Nov. 9, 2012

FYI >From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] Regarding Board meeting on WHOIS >Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 22:49:07 +0000 > >Hello All, > >Just a note that the Board had a 2.5 hour call on the WHOIS review today. > >A resolution was passed, but the Board requested further work on the >rationale before it is published. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [ALAC] GNSO Comment on WHOIS Review Team Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 8, 2012

Nov. 8, 2012

Yup. A CEO who is "gets it" and is actively paying attention is likely to be more effective than a Board committee that is far less in touch (certainly physically). And the Board is supposedly still watching the CEO. So I am not unhappy with the current situation. Whether it will work, we will all have to wait and see. Alan At 07/11/2012 09:16 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Thanks Alan. > >Item #4 (and the BC commentary on it) seems moot, now that >Compliance now reports to the CEO. I think the RT intent was, like >ours, to get it out of ICANN legal. > > > >On 7 November 2012 19:40, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Finally, a GNSO comment to the Board on the WHOIS RT Report. Bruce >thanked the Council for getting it to the Board in time for the >Board meeting on WHOIS which is scheduled for tomorrow. > >Alan > >From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] >Sent: 07 November 2012 12:10 >To: Steve Crocker (<mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>steve(a)shinkuro.com) >Cc: '<mailto:secretary@icann.org>secretary(a)icann.org' >Subject: WHOIS Review Team Final Report > >Dr Steve Crocker >Chair, ICANN Board of Directors > >Dear Steve, > >Please see the attached regarding the GNSO and the WHOIS Review Team >Final Report. > >Please also accept my apologies for the timing of this response >relative to your meeting tomorrow. > >Yours sincerely, > > > >Jonathan Robinson >Chair >ICANN GNSO Council > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 >

1 0