Dear Alan, thanks for this quick summary. One item which has been matter of strong debate on the NCSG list has been the matter of Trademark Claims Protection for Previously Abused Names: Quoting from the ICANN Staff announcement: "The fourth element of the Strawman model was a proposal that where there are domain labels that have been found to be the subject of abusive registrations (for example, as a result of a UDRP or court proceeding), a limited number (up to 50) of these could be added to a Clearinghouse record. These names would be mapped to an existing record where the trademark has already been verified by the Clearinghouse." The ALAC has, in its statement, supported the idea whilst insisting that the exact details of this idea, since it would be a change of policy, needed to be worked out in the GNSO: Quoted from the Public Comments report: "Given the limited nature of this protection and its reliance on past abuse, ALAC supports the inclusion of domain names previously determined to have been abusively registered or used in both Trademark Claims services. This change is a totally new mechanism that has not been the subject of previous extensive discussion and investigation; as such, it is clearly policy and cannot be judged simply as implementation. ALAC encourages the GNSO to fairly investigate the benefits and impacts of this mechanism and to recommend its adoption. ALAC (16 Jan. 2013)" Alan - I do not believe that our position has changed on this, and I am concerned about accusations that the ALAC supports creating new rights. Whilst it is clear that previously abused names have a significant negative effect on Internet users, the proper course of action should have been to consult the GNSO. To-date, we do not know *what* kind of variation would be allowed, whether this includes typo-squatting, visual similarity or other systems that might be used to stifle freedom of speech. May I remind you that the ALAC's position on the STI was to not allow for other "rights" to be afforded, but that any additional information that a Trademark holder would like to specify to be displayed for a potential registrant could be contained in another database - but one which did not hold the same legal status as the "main" TMCH database. A GNSO WG would have raised questions about that. I am all for protecting Internet users from fraud - but I am also process-oriented and am therefore very concerned that this creates a precedent. We have complained in the past that staff implementation is different than what we had envisaged. Here, we clearly said it was policy & staff made a policy decision. In light of this, I'd like to first get a point of view from ALAC members here, and second, suggest that this specific point (TMCH+50) be a topic for discussion in our meeting with the NCSG on Monday 8 April. Kind regards, Olivier On 22/03/2013 03:44, Alan Greenberg wrote:
ICANN has announced the outcome of the new gTPD trademark protection discussion.
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution...
Although the outcomes were not exactly as the ALAC advised (in terms of what required policy development), all of the IP protections that ICANN will be moving ahead with were supported by the ALAC, and the one additional protection that the ALAC explicitly did not support will not be implemented.
Also a vlog from the CEO - http://blog.icann.org/2013/03/new-gtld-milestones-and-deadlines/.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html