April 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Prague Schedule / Tuesday 16 October 2012
by At-Large Staff July 17, 2013

July 17, 2013

Dear All, Please find hereafter the At-Large schedule for tomorrow, Tuesday 16 October 2012 with all remote participation details listed on the ICANN Schedule: Wiki Agenda page: http://tinyurl.com/9h95fo6 ICANN Schedule: http://toronto45.icann.org/full-schedule Meeting Room Map: http://toronto45.icann.org/files/meetings/toronto2012/45-Toronto-VenueMap-3O ct12.png * 07:00 - 08:00 NARALO Capacity Building Session 2 Regatta Room http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34285 * 08:00 - 09:00 Joint NARALO / Fellows Meeting 2 Frontenac http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34283 * 08:30 09:30: Meeting with ICANN Board Metro East http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34289 * 10:00 - 11:00: At-Large Capacity Building: Next Steps Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34307 * 11:00 13:00: ALAC Policy Discussion Part 1 Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34313 13:00 - 14:00 LUNCH break * 14:00 16:00: ALAC Policy Discussion Part 2 Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34327 * 16:00 - 17:00: Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Working Group Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34353 * 17:00 18:00: At-Large Outreach Sub-Committee Meeting Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34361 General Meetings: Please refer to full Schedule: http://prague44.icann.org/full-schedule Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

4 14

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
by Alan Greenberg May 13, 2013

May 13, 2013

Note that the TMCH has two separate components. The backend and the interface with registries is, I believe, a single database and is being run under contract to ICANN by IBM. The interface to TM holders and the validation service is contracted to Deloitte. The design explicitly allows for distributed user interfaces and validation services to ensure proper handling of different languages, scripts and TM law. Alan At 23/04/2013 07:17 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Also agree with Yaovi on removing the word "centralized" >And thanks to Hong and Rinala for the work done on this statement. > >Dev Anand > >On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > +1 > > > > In any case, the opening of offices in Turkey and Singapore makes it hard > > to argue that ICANN isn't at least making an attempt to decentralize. > > > > (Please don't see my relative silence as lack of interest, but rather lack > > of depth in the issue) > > > > - Evan > > > > > > On 23 April 2013 14:19, Yaovi Atohoun <yaovito(a)yahoo.fr> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> In the statement we can read : > >> "... we strongly urge ICANN to move away from a model that is centralized, > >> inflexible and unfriendly to variants. " > >> > >> My question : Is is not possible to have a model that is centralized and > >> taking into account IDN variant issues? > >> If so my recommendation is to remove the word "Centralized" in the > >> sentence above. > >> > >> > >> Yaovi > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> De : JJS <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> > >> À : Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> > >> Cc : apralo <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; No name < > >> idn-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ALAC Working List < > >> alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> Envoyé le : Dimanche 21 avril 2013 4h11 > >> Objet : Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants > >> > >> > >> *Dear Rinalia,* > >> * > >> * > >> *you've done a very thorough job, thank you. * > >> *Below, my **suggested modifications in red.* > >> * > >> * > >> *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark > Clearinghouse and IDN Variants > >> * > >> > >> The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is deeply concerned by the > >> implementation model outlined in the Trademark Clearinghouse: Rights > >> Protection Mechanism Requirements published > on April 6, 2013. We view the > >> model to be deficient in that it overlooks the critical issue of IDN > >> variants; thus implemented, the model would clearly run against the public > >> interest in the pertinent > >> user communities.* > >> * > >> > >> *(1) Domain Name Matching* > >> > >> Language communities have requested that TMCH services factor IDN-script > >> trademarks involving variants and that ICANN consider adopting > >> community-based solutions to address this issue since October 2011. > >> Despite > >> concerns raised by language community experts in the TMCH Implementation > >> Assistance Group (IAG), the domain name matching requirements of the TMCH > >> still does not take into account trademarks in IDN scripts involving > >> variants. Variant matching is critical in certain languages and > >> particularly in Chinese. To illustrate, when a trademark > >> holder registers a simplified Chinese word-mark and not its traditional > >> equivalent, the TMCH will accordingly generate only one trademark record. > >> The > >> new gTLD registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and trademark > >> claims for trademarks recorded in the TMCH. Without variant matching > >> requirements in place, only that registered simplified word-mark will be > >> eligible for trademark protection. This leaves the traditional word-mark > >> equivalent open for cybersquatting. Given that both simplified and > >> traditional writings of the word-mark are deemed identical by Chinese > >> communities worldwide (and by norm few trademarks are registered in both > >> writings), > >> ruling out the un-registered writing by not > allowing variant matching would > >> make the TMCH completely useless to Chinese > trademarks, and would result in > >> an unfair penalty against users of Chinese. > >> > >> *A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model* > >> > >> Trademarks have a very important function in safeguarding the public > >> interest by > >> identifying the source of goods and services. > >> > >> *The rest seems fine.* > >> * > >> * > >> *Best regards,* > >> *Jean-Jacques.* > >> > >> > >> 2013/4/20 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> > >> > >> > Dear Members of the IDN WG, APRALO and ALAC Colleagues, > >> > > >> > I have revised the proposed " *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on > >> Trademark > >> > Clearinghouse and IDN Variants*" based on Hong's draft, input received > >> in > >> > Beijing and my own consultation with IDN Variant experts. > >> > > >> > Please review and comment on the draft on > the wiki for tracking purposes. > >> > The wiki page for the draft is here - > >> > > >> > > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+the+ICANN+… > >> > > >> > Once the text is deemed satisfactory, it will be forwarded to the ALAC > >> for > >> > a vote. Please try your best to respond with comments by Friday April > >> > 26th. > >> > > >> > Text pasted below for rapid review. The final version will be proofread > >> > and > >> > a summary of recommendations will be produced as part of the final > >> version > >> > (as per our norm in giving advice to the Board). > >> > > >> > Best regards, > >> > > >> > Rinalia > >> > > >> > *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark Clearinghouse and IDN > >> > Variants > >> > * > >> > > >> > The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is deeply concerned by the > >> > implementation model outlined in the Trademark Clearinghouse: Rights > >> > Protection Mechanism Requirements published on April 6, 2013. We view > >> the > >> > model to be deficient in that it overlooks the critical issue of IDN > >> > variants, which would seriously impact the public interest in the > >> pertinent > >> > user communities. > >> > > >> > We wish to highlight two areas of particular concern in the Trademark > >> > Clearinghouse (TMCH) requirements: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > *(1) Domain Name Matching* > >> > > >> > Language communities have requested that TMCH services factor IDN-script > >> > trademarks involving variants and that ICANN consider adopting > >> > community-based solutions to address this issue since October 2011. > >> > Despite > >> > concerns raised by language community experts in the TMCH Implementation > >> > Assistance Group (IAG), the domain name > matching requirements of the TMCH > >> > still does not take into account trademarks in IDN scripts involving > >> > variants. Variant matching is critical for certain languages and > >> > particularly for the Chinese language. To illustrate, when a trademark > >> > holder registers a simplified Chinese word-mark and not its traditional > >> > equivalent, the TMCH will accordingly > generate only one trademark record. > >> > The > >> > new gTLD registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and trademark > >> > claims for trademarks recorded in the TMCH. Without variant matching > >> > requirements in place, only that registered simplified word-mark will be > >> > eligible for trademark protection. This > leaves the traditional word-mark > >> > equivalent open for cybersquatting. Given that both simplified and > >> > traditional writings of the word-mark are > deemed identical by the Chinese > >> > community (and by norm few trademarks are registered in both writings), > >> > ruling out the un-registered writing by not allowing variant matching > >> would > >> > make the TMCH completely useless to Chinese trademarks. > >> > > >> > > >> > *(2) Domain Name Bundling* > >> > > >> > The TMCH requirements specifically prohibit any registry from > >> implementing > >> > variant or bundling rules and allocating domain names under such > >> variant > >> > or bundling rules prior to the conclusion > of the Sunrise Period. Such a > >> > restriction would exclude the accommodation of any solution for IDN > >> > trademarks involving variants during the > sunrise period at the TLD level, > >> > even though registries may be willing to address the variants through > >> their > >> > own registration management and at their own expense. > >> > > >> > *A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model* > >> > > >> > Trademarks have a very important function of safeguarding the public > >> > interest by > >> > identifying the source of goods and services. If left unaddressed, the > >> > deficiencies of the TMCH model design may likely cause serious public > >> > confusion and result in market chaos. In principle, the At-Large > >> community > >> > does not support over-extensive trademark protection measures. However, > >> we > >> > do strongly believe that ICANN should treat all trademarks equally, > >> > irrespective of the characters of the > trademarks, and that users from all > >> > language communities should be protected from confusion equally. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > In September 2012, the ALAC statement on > the TMCH called for a more open > >> > and flexible model that can address our communitys concerns regarding > >> the > >> > limitations of a uniform model, which would be applied to all gTLD > >> > registries irrespective of their differences and competencies. We > >> believe > >> > that new gTLD registries require a more open and flexible TMCH model to > >> be > >> > successful and we strongly urge ICANN to move away from a model that is > >> > centralized, inflexible and unfriendly to variants. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > In light of the considerations above, the ALAC urges the ICANN Board to > >> > call for a more open and flexible TMCH model. Towards this end, we urge > >> > the Board to support a community-based, bottom-up solution for TMCH > >> > implementation and to ensure that the IDN variant issue is addressed > >> before > >> > the TMCH begin providing services to the new gTLD registries. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > We understand that addressing the IDN Variant issue in a holistic way > >> > requires the development of Label Generation Rules (LGR) for the Root > >> Zone, > >> > which experts and Staff have projected to > require a minimum of 12 months. > >> > We > >> > appreciate that the LGR development requires conscientious effort to > >> > maintain the security and stability of the Internet, but we are also > >> > mindful that the business and practical requirements of new gTLD > >> > applicants, especially from developing economies, call for urgent > >> > implementation. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > To expedite the development of appropriate > solutions, the ALAC recommends > >> > that the Board request from the ICANN CEO an interim mechanism that can > >> > yield such solutions efficiently and on an urgent basis. This may > >> require > >> > additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities working in > >> > tandem with community members with relevant expertise. It may also > >> require > >> > a consideration of expediting the LGR process for the Han script. We > >> > understand that in the general case, the handling of variants is a > >> complex > >> > issue. However, for variant cases that are well defined and understood, > >> > such as the case of the Han script, ICANN should proceed on a fast-track > >> > basis to include variant support in the TMCH in time to accommodate the > >> > delegation of the appropriate TLDs. > >> > > >> > END > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > IDN-WG mailing list > >> > IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg > >> > > >> > IDN WG Wiki: > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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… > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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… > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Evan Leibovitch > > Toronto Canada > > > > Em: evan at telly dot org > > Sk: evanleibovitch > > Tw: el56 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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… > >_______________________________________________ >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

9 17

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] REMINDER: MEETING REPORTS
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 3, 2013

May 3, 2013

Dear all, I just wanted to follow-up on the request relayed by staff. Only a handful of people contributed to the At-Large Beijing Meeting Reports. Bravo to them: they did an excellent job and I thank them very much since it was really helpful to read through their summary. But many people on the ALAC and regional leadership did not file even *one* report and I really hope that you can contribute at least one report to this page. Your *ten minutes* will save *lots* of time for other people who have not had the chance to attend the session. And they will really help our ALSes understand what happened in Beijing. Thanks, Olivier On 29/04/2013 18:23, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear All, > > As a reminder, please be sure to submit your meeting reports to the At-Large Beijing Meeting Reports Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/gYU3Ag>. > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 2, 2013

May 2, 2013

Dear Hong, Thank you for this extensive draft statement for the ALAC's consideration. The discovery that the Trademark Clearing House (TMCH) does not address IDN variants is distressing, particularly for the Chinese case given its unique variant situation. By way of copying Avri, I am asking her about the possibility of a joint statement on this issue and the time frame the new gTLD WG might require to review the draft. In my opinion it would certainly strengthen the case if it is a joint WG statement. Given the substantive content of this draft, it is possible that the ALAC may ask for additional information and time to consider the draft and to comment. Let's see what Avri thinks and what the ALAC would say tomorrow. It would be good if you are able to attend the ALAC wrap-up meeting tomorrow (Thursday 9-11am) to brief the ALAC about the draft. I expect statement approvals will be addressed under agenda item 4 on ALAC Action. Best regards, Rinalia On Apr 10, 2013 10:19 PM, "Hong Xue" <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find below my draft statement. I'd appreciate for your quick review > and feedback. > > I was the drafter of the New gTLD WG Statement on TMCH. Shall we also > forward the draft to that WG to make it a joint submission to ALAC? > > Best, > > Hong > > _________________________________________________ > > At-Large Statement on Trademark Clearinghouse and IDN Variants > > > > At-large community is very disappointed at the implementation model > outlined by “Trademark Clearinghouse: Rights Protection Mechanism > Requirements” (hereafter “Requirements’) published on April 6, 2013. > Particularly, the model completely overlooks the critical issues of IDN > variants with respect to trademark clearinghouse (TMCH) and as a result > would seriously impact the public interest in the pertinent user > communities. > > > > According to the Requirements, *matching domain name labels will be > generated for each Trademark Record in accordance with the Trademark > Clearinghouse’s domain name matching rules*. > > > > The matching rules at the TMCH obviously, however, fail to take into > account the trademarks in IDN scripts involving variants, although the > variant issues had been raised by the language community experts at the > Implementation Assistant Group (IAG). > > > > Variant matching is actually critical for certain language communities. > Take Chinese for example, where a trademark holder merely registers a > simplified word-mark but not its traditional equivalence, there will only > be one trademark record generated in the TMCH. Since the new gTLD > registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and trademark claims for > the trademarks recorded in the TMCH, only that simplified word-mark will be > eligible for sunrise registration and trademark claim services and leaves > the traditional equivalence open for cybersquatting. Since both writings of > the word-mark are deemed identical in the Chinese community and few > trademarks are registered in both writings, ruling out the un-registered > writing would make TMCH completely useless to Chinese trademarks. > > > > What is even more striking is that the Requirements specifically prohibits > any registry from implementing *variant or bundling rules* and allocating > domain names *under such variant or bundling rules prior to the > conclusionof the Sunrise Period. > * Such restriction actually excludes any solution for IDN trademarks > involving variants to be accommodated in the sunrise period at the TLD > level, even though a registry is willing fix the variants through its > registration management and at its own costs. > > > > Trademarks have very important function of safeguarding public interests by > identifying the source of goods or services. The malfunctioned TMCH design > would cause serious public confusion and market chaos. Although at-large > community never supports over-extensive trademark measures, ICANN should > treat all the trademarks equally, irrespective of the characters of the > trademarks, and protect the users in all language communities from > confusion equally. > > > > At-Large community has made the statement on the Trademark Clearinghouse > (TMCH) in September 2012, in which at-large community concerns that the > design of TMCH model that uniformly applies to all the gTLD registries, > irrespective of their difference, may not provide the tailored services > that are really needed by the new gTLD registries. At-large community > suggested that “more open and flexible model deserves further exploration.” > > > > The Chinese Internet user community, dating back to October 2011, suggested > that IDN-script trademarks involving variants should be taken into account > in the TMCH services and ICANN consider adopting community-based solution > to address this issue. Many other language communities shared the views of > Chinese community. > > > > Unfortunately, ICANN has been deaf to the user community’s feedback and > inputs and moves steadily toward the centralized, inflexible and > variants-unfriendly TMCH. At-large community, therefore, strongly suggests > that ICANN support community-based TLD-bottom-up solution for TMCH > implementation and address the IDN variant issue before TMCH provides the > services to the new gTLD registries. > > > > > > -- > Professor Dr. Hong Xue > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > Beijing Normal University > http://www.iipl.org.cn/ > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > Beijing 100875 China > _______________________________________________ > IDN-WG mailing list > IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg > > IDN WG Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy >

8 15

Fwd: [new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)] The purported "closed generic' loophole has been...
by Holly Raiche May 1, 2013

May 1, 2013

Hi Everyone I don't know how many of you get Phil's stuff, but maybe he is right and the issue of 'closed generic' TLDs is addressed? Would someone closer to this issue check to see if he is right. (and please put something on the wiki - either to say we are happy that the latest RAA addresses the issue - or not) Thanks Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: "Philip Corwin" <notification+zrdo=66e=lcz(a)facebookmail.com> > Date: 1 May 2013 8:20:27 AM AEST > To: "new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)" <283484908411146(a)groups.facebook.com> > Subject: [new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)] The purported "closed generic' loophole has been... > Reply-To: Reply to comment <g+40rp409t000zg543zelp004ehdt4hb53000zg4db9t612c346(a)groups.facebook.com> > > Philip Corwin posted in new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A) > > Philip Corwin 1 May 08:20 > The purported "closed generic' loophole has been eliminated in this new RA draft. > > I just took a look at the redline version of Specification 9 in the revised gTLD RA -- the Code of Conduct. > > ICANN has struck the words “that are reasonably necessary for the management, operations and purpose of the TLD;” from Section 1b, replacing it with language permitting a registry operator to have up to 100 domains for its own exclusive use. It was the “purpose” reference that was the basis for applicant claims that they could be the sole registrant in their own gTLD without seeking a Section 6 exemption. So the purported loophole is now gone, and all "closed generic” applicants must now seek a section 6 “public interest” exemption. > > Looks like ICANN is already taking GAC advice... > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm > Proposed Final New gTLD Registry Agreement | ICANN > www.icann.org > Comment / Reply Periods (*)Comment Open Date: 29 April 2013Comment Close Date: 20 May 2013 - 23:59 U... > > View Post on Facebook · Edit email settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.

4 4

The Guardian: Amazon versus the Amazon
by Evan Leibovitch April 28, 2013

April 28, 2013

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/25/amazon-domain-name-battle… -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

4 3

DNS Summit in New York
by Alan Greenberg April 27, 2013

April 27, 2013

From: http://blog.icann.org/2013/04/dns-summit-in-new-york/ DNS Summit in New York by Fadi Chehadé on April 26, 2013 On April 23, I met with leaders of ccTLDs, Registries, and Registrars in New York City for a milestone event that converged our work initiated during each of the CEO Roundtables hosted since the beginning of this year. Throughout the roundtable series, I have learned a great deal and have been profoundly impressed by the participants' dedication to enhancing, strengthening and advancing the Domain Name System (DNS) sector. This particular session also marked the posting of the Proposed Final 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) for which ICANN is seeking public comment. Getting to this stage, after eighteen months of intense negotiations, is a tremendous collective accomplishment and I would like to convey my sincere appreciation to the Registrar Negotiating Team for their significant contributions and collaborative dialogue throughout the process. As part of the summit agenda, participants briefed each other on efforts to raise the profile of the DNS sector, provided status reports on various DNS initiatives, and delved into mechanisms that can be utilized to further demonstrate the value of the Internet. For instance, discussions centered on topics such as info graphics for depicting the domain name value chain; philanthropic vehicles to support DNS entrepreneurship in the developing world; industry conferences and consumer awareness forums; and proposals to codify ethical standards for DNS businesses. What I found to be particularly beneficial during our interactive brainstorming sessions were the perspectives and experiences of the ccTLD operators. We emerged with a timeline for completing our work to be showcased to the broader community at ICANN 47 in Durban in July. I want to emphasize this work was conducted entirely by the CEOs, with ICANN serving as facilitator, and it was truly exciting to see this diverse group of leaders in action. In addition, a sub-group of participants presented their plans to form a Domain Name Industry Association, entirely independent of ICANN, designed to further the interests of a range of organizations within the ever-evolving DNS sector. During the latter part of our meeting, we focused on ICANN's future through an interactive session, one of many conversations to take place in the coming months. As I explained in Beijing, we will begin a process in June toward creating a new vision and a five-year strategic plan for ICANN, and all stakeholders are invited to participate. More information: Video and Strategy Conversation. I am extremely grateful to everyone who could be there, including ICANN Board Members Cherine Chalaby and Bruce Tonkin, and for their deep insights on how ICANN can continue to achieve its goal of becoming a mature, inclusive and efficient organization. ICANN's Engagement Team is already at work organizing comparable events and is planning a CEO Roundtable for leaders from academia, civil society and nonprofits in the near future. Our work, however, is only just beginning as we look ahead to the bright horizon. The New gTLD Program Timeline [SEE ATTACHED] is reflective of these important endeavors, and I remain invigorated by the forward steps that we are all achieving together.

1 0

Fwd: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Data Protection and Privacy Working Draft
by Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro April 23, 2013

April 23, 2013

Dear All, In case you have comments on this current Draft, see attachment. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal(a)pir.org> > Date: April 24, 2013, 12:29:39 AM GMT+12:00 > To: "Thick Thin PDP (gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg(a)icann.org)" <gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Data Protection and Privacy Working Draft > > Mikey asked me to send the subteam's current working draft for today's call. We are almost finished, but still have a little some cleaning up to do. It may turn into a lot of cleaning up, depending on what data protection changes are in the draft RAA that was published for comment last night. Some provisions stand out as relevant but we need to take a closer look. > > I'm in Buenos Aires for a conference so I won't be on the call. The timing is entirely coincidental. > > Don

1 0

Fwd: Actually ICANN is creating new rights for THOUSANDS of derivations of a big brand TM, not 50 like staff claims in the large print. It is TM+50 derivations of each trademark label in the small print
by Evan Leibovitch April 23, 2013

April 23, 2013

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> Date: 27 March 2013 01:15 Subject: Actually ICANN is creating new rights for THOUSANDS of derivations of a big brand TM, not 50 like staff claims in the large print. It is TM+50 derivations of each trademark label in the small print To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu It was revealed today during ICANN's new gtld webinar that ICANN is in fact creating rights to much more than the TM+50 derivations of that mark in its trademark clearinghouse. The fine print of this new right reads closer to "trademark + 50 derivations of that mark *for each trademark label".* So for example, for big brand companies like Apple, who will have a trademark registration in 30 countries for the word IPOD, ICANN will be assigning each of those separate registrations for the same trademark a new "trademark label", and *each trademark label* will be allowed to block registrations of the trademark +50 derivations. So in the Apple/IPOD example, Apple will be able block registrations for the TM + 1500 derivations of that mark (30 countries x 50 derivations = 1500). And ICANN staff confirmed that this is how staff's policy is designed to work on the webinar today. So this very practical example shows how half-baked staff's proposal truly is. Had the community ever been allowed to develop this proposal, these little "oopsies" could have been avoided. Of course it isn't an "oopsy" for the TM lobbyists who created the proposal - its a gigantic windfall of rights that exist no where in law, obtained no community consensus, and chill the speech of thousands of other lawful uses of a word. This very important distinction between a trademark and trademark label shows how big brands will in fact be able to block thousands of unrelated, lawful expression in the DNS. But ICANN promised that it won't be creating new rights with its policies, so I guess we don't have to worry and should trust them.... Sigh, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

2 1

Fwd: German Federal Internet Commission Report
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro April 22, 2013

April 22, 2013

Dear All, As you can imagine some of the continuing issues permeating through increasing reliance on the Internet are issues of Data Protection and Privacy. One of the latest developments in Europe, specifically Germany is the release of the report by a Commission that was established by their Parliament. A Special Internet and Digital Society Commission has made numerous recommendations and one of it includes the establishment of the Internet Commissioner in Germany. To read the Article, visit: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-in… To read the Final Report visit: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

3 3