Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
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@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@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
Dear Hong & Rinalia, thank you Hong for coming up so quickly with a comprehensive draft. It represents a thorough and well-argued position, and may just require a few stylistic improvements. On substance, I would add: - it might be useful to mention some technical considerations provided by Asmus (the group working on the LGR may take another year to present its full solution; - so, in the meantime, it would be advisable to set up an interim solution (add temporary staff with the proper skills, in order to treat the IDN Variants efficiently and speedily). With those improvements, I would agree to voting positively tomorrow (Thursday). Best regards, Jean-Jacques. 2013/4/10 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
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@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@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
_______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@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
Hi, Rinalia, kindly let me know what was the decision from ALAC at the wrap-up? Or, no movement at all? Hong On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
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@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@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
-- 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
Dear Hong, In brief: Based on a "temperature check" by the ALAC Chair, there was a consensus that the ALAC would support advocacy on this very important issue in principle. A short statement of support will be presented during the public forum today by the ALAC, advising the Board that the issue is of great concern to the ALAC and that a formal statement will be issued. The formal statement based on your draft will be amended to incorporate some suggested additions, and the ALAC will vote upon the statement once the amendments have been made and tabled for ALAC comments and approval (realistically, after Beijing). I will take the responsibility of editing the draft and I will ensure that the statement gets finalized and voted upon shortly after Beijing. Thank you so very much for bringing this issue to the ALAC's attention and for preparing the excellent draft. Best regards, Rinalia On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Rinalia, kindly let me know what was the decision from ALAC at the wrap-up? Or, no movement at all?
Hong
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
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@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@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
-- 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
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+B... 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 community’s 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
*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@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+B...
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 community’s 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@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
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@gmail.com> À : Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> Cc : apralo <apac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; No name <idn-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ALAC Working List <alac@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@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+B...
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 community’s 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@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@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...)
+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@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@gmail.com> À : Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> Cc : apralo <apac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; No name < idn-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ALAC Working List < alac@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@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+B...
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 community’s 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@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@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...) _______________________________________________ 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...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
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@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@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@gmail.com> À : Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> Cc : apralo <apac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; No name < idn-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ALAC Working List < alac@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@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+B...
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 community’s 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@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@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...) _______________________________________________ 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...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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...)
I made the Draft on April 10 and updated it on April 11 on the wiki. It seems the current one does not refflect the updated parts. I don't understand why the current page at https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+the+ICANN+B... completely removed my initial and updated versions, along with all the comments. Could anyone help me to get those back? I do believe all the volunteers' works should be saved and recorded. Trademark variatns are more complicated than IDN variants and may not exactly match up to the LGR, particularly withe respect to Trademark Claims. I don't assume LGR needs to be addressed here. Also, I oppose to " This may require additional Staff ". The community needs hope not more staffing. Hong -- 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
*Dear Hong,* * * *I'll let those like yourself who put in all the hard work, to reply more specifically to the points you raised. Just 2 quick remarks:* * * *- "*I don't assume LGR needs to be addressed here." *Well, during one of the sessions with the presence of an expert (he was presented to us as the leading authority on this question), we were given an explanation on why and how the LGR must be fully taken into account in any proposal about IDN variants. That's why we thought it necessary to include the point about LGR in the revisions which Rinalia was kind enough to take care of, based upon your very valuable initial draft.* * * *- "*The community needs hope not more staffing." *I'm sure our community agrees with you. However, in a structure like ICANN, hope alone does not always achieve the results we expect. Why did we specifically mention staffing? Because in the course of meetings, it became apparent that in the process leading to the acceptance and introduction of IDN variants, there are gaps, specifically regarding personnel having the required technical capacity, but also a sufficient level of understanding of linguistic constraints and user expectations.* * * *With best wishes,* *Jean-Jacques.* 2013/4/21 Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com>
I made the Draft on April 10 and updated it on April 11 on the wiki. It seems the current one does not refflect the updated parts. I don't understand why the current page at
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+the+ICANN+B... completely removed my initial and updated versions, along with all the comments. Could anyone help me to get those back? I do believe all the volunteers' works should be saved and recorded.
Trademark variatns are more complicated than IDN variants and may not exactly match up to the LGR, particularly withe respect to Trademark Claims. I don't assume LGR needs to be addressed here.
Also, I oppose to " This may require additional Staff ". The community needs hope not more staffing.
Hong
-- 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@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
Dear Hong, I am sorry to hear that you lost your wiki page. I was not aware that you had set one up and I didn't see a link/URL of the page sent to the Working Group. I do suggest checking with At-Large staff to see whether there was a glitch. Regarding whether the LGR process is relevant to the TMCH, I have consulted 3 leading IDN Variant experts, who have multi-script expertise including Han. They all indicated that the LGR is implicated for the TMCH and that the current TMCH model affects several languages with Chinese being affected the most. Even if you choose to disregard the LGR process for the Root Zone, you still need something akin to the LGR process specifically for the purposes of the TMCH. I have also consulted Edmon on this matter. He concurred that there are alternative pathways, but seemed to prefer the LGR process. In my opinion this makes sense because there is a strong case for having an expedited LGR process for the Han script, which the experts support. With an expedited LGR process for Han, there won't need to be a duplication of efforts for the Root Zone as well as for the TMCH. Jean-Jacques has indicated why the emphasis on competent staff is important to facilitate the process. I have added the emphasis on working in tandem with members of the community with the relevant expertise to ensure a successful outcome, which is consistent with the need for a bottom-up approach that you highlighted. I have listened and taken note of community feedback on your draft very carefully and I have tried my best to factor these input in the revised version. I have also gone out of my way to consult experts. In my opinion the statement is strong. It advocates for all languages impacted, with a special consideration for Han, and it makes concrete and specific recommendations to the Board on next steps, which are doable. The Board needs and appreciates recommendations that indicate where to direct ICANN resources to address a problem when a problem is identified for their attention. I think that the ALAC would support this statement. Best regards, Rinalia On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
I made the Draft on April 10 and updated it on April 11 on the wiki. It seems the current one does not refflect the updated parts. I don't understand why the current page at
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+the+ICANN+B... completely removed my initial and updated versions, along with all the comments. Could anyone help me to get those back? I do believe all the volunteers' works should be saved and recorded.
Trademark variatns are more complicated than IDN variants and may not exactly match up to the LGR, particularly withe respect to Trademark Claims. I don't assume LGR needs to be addressed here.
Also, I oppose to " This may require additional Staff ". The community needs hope not more staffing.
Hong
-- 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@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
I am sorry to hear that you lost your wiki page. I was not aware that you had set one up and I didn't see a link/URL of the page sent to the Working Group. I do suggest checking with At-Large staff to see whether there was a glitch.
That's not MY wiki page. It is exactly the link you sent to me before the Public Forum and I immeidately made the update and comments on it. To my memory, JJS and others also made the comments on that "elusive" page. Now all gone!! What happened？I specifically request this be fixed immediately. Thanks again for listening to us. Wishfully ICANN can do the same. Hong
litate the process. I have added the emphasis on working in tandem with members of the community with the relevant expertise to ensure a successful outcome, which is consistent with the need for a bottom-up approach that you highlighted.
I have listened and taken note of community feedback on your draft very carefully and I have tried my best to factor these input in the revised version. I have also gone out of my way to consult experts. In my opinion the statement is strong. It advocates for all languages impacted, with a special consideration for Han, and it makes concrete and specific recommendations to the Board on next steps, which are doable. The Board needs and appreciates recommendations that indicate where to direct ICANN resources to address a problem when a problem is identified for their attention. I think that the ALAC would support this statement.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
I made the Draft on April 10 and updated it on April 11 on the wiki. It seems the current one does not refflect the updated parts. I don't understand why the current page at
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+the+ICANN+B... completely removed my initial and updated versions, along with all the comments. Could anyone help me to get those back? I do believe all the volunteers' works should be saved and recorded.
Trademark variatns are more complicated than IDN variants and may not exactly match up to the LGR, particularly withe respect to Trademark Claims. I don't assume LGR needs to be addressed here.
Also, I oppose to " This may require additional Staff ". The community needs hope not more staffing.
Hong
-- 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@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
-- 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
Dear Hong, the current page does not reflect the updated parts because, for some reason, it is not the valid page for the statement. I think Rinalia created it, unaware that there is already a page. The correct Statement working page is: https://community.icann.org/x/nAR-Ag May I ask Staff to work with Rinalia and you to integrate Rinalia's input on: https://community.icann.org/x/0Qd-Ag with your input on: https://community.icann.org/x/nAR-Ag Thanks, Olivier On 21/04/2013 09:52, Hong Xue wrote:
I made the Draft on April 10 and updated it on April 11 on the wiki. It seems the current one does not refflect the updated parts. I don't understand why the current page at https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+the+ICANN+B... completely removed my initial and updated versions, along with all the comments. Could anyone help me to get those back? I do believe all the volunteers' works should be saved and recorded.
Trademark variatns are more complicated than IDN variants and may not exactly match up to the LGR, particularly withe respect to Trademark Claims. I don't assume LGR needs to be addressed here.
Also, I oppose to " This may require additional Staff ". The community needs hope not more staffing.
Hong
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Thanks for bringing back THAT page magically, which is much more informative and illustrative. We should all work on this "valid" workspace. Hong On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Dear Hong,
the current page does not reflect the updated parts because, for some reason, it is not the valid page for the statement. I think Rinalia created it, unaware that there is already a page.
The correct Statement working page is: https://community.icann.org/x/nAR-Ag
May I ask Staff to work with Rinalia and you to integrate Rinalia's input on: https://community.icann.org/x/0Qd-Ag with your input on: https://community.icann.org/x/nAR-Ag
Thanks,
Olivier
On 21/04/2013 09:52, Hong Xue wrote:
I made the Draft on April 10 and updated it on April 11 on the wiki. It seems the current one does not refflect the updated parts. I don't understand why the current page at
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+the+ICANN+B...
completely removed my initial and updated versions, along with all the comments. Could anyone help me to get those back? I do believe all the volunteers' works should be saved and recorded.
Trademark variatns are more complicated than IDN variants and may not exactly match up to the LGR, particularly withe respect to Trademark Claims. I don't assume LGR needs to be addressed here.
Also, I oppose to " This may require additional Staff ". The community needs hope not more staffing.
Hong
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-- 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
Dear Hong, Our apologies for any problems related to the WIKI. Matt will assist you with to locate the document and post it in the WIKI. Thank you! Kind regards, Silvia Silvia Vivanco Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (202) 570-7119 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Cell/Mobile: +1 (202) 735-7011 -----Original Message----- From: idn-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:idn-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Hong Xue Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:53 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Cc: apralo; No name Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants I made the Draft on April 10 and updated it on April 11 on the wiki. It seems the current one does not refflect the updated parts. I don't understand why the current page at https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+the+ICANN+B... completely removed my initial and updated versions, along with all the comments. Could anyone help me to get those back? I do believe all the volunteers' works should be saved and recorded. Trademark variatns are more complicated than IDN variants and may not exactly match up to the LGR, particularly withe respect to Trademark Claims. I don't assume LGR needs to be addressed here. Also, I oppose to " This may require additional Staff ". The community needs hope not more staffing. Hong -- 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@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
participants (8)
-
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Evan Leibovitch -
Hong Xue -
JJS -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim -
Silvia Vivanco -
Yaovi Atohoun