Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
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@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 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@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...)
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants. I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems variants would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are considered common data items and stored in the common database. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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@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...)
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Hi Everyone, Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin... And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their applications. I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted: 1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such “variant or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period. 2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model To take out the sentence: " 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." 3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model 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. ICANN already has all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations. I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could help improve the statement. Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants.
I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems variants would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are considered common data items and stored in the common database.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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@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+I
CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants
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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
-- 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13
Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement. Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support or disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have questions or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as well. If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to amend the statement. Best regards, Rinalia On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin...
And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their applications.
I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such “variant or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model To take out the sentence: " 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."
3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model 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. ICANN already has all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could help improve the statement.
Edmon
> 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
-- 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13
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+I
CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants
> > 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
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants.
I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems variants would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are considered common data items and stored in the common database.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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@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
_______________________________________________ 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
*Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,* * * *I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the deletion of the following sentence? * *"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." * * * *Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?* * * *Jean-Jacques.* * * 2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.
Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support or disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have questions or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as well.
If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to amend the statement.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin...
And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their applications.
I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such
“variant
or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model To take out the sentence: " 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."
3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model 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. ICANN already has all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could help improve the statement.
Edmon
> > 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
> _______________________________________________ > 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
>
-- 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13
> 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+I
CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants
> > > > 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
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants.
I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems variants would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are considered common data items and stored in the common database.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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@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
_______________________________________________ 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
I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for: “ICANN should treat all trademarks equally” Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are different types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered, etc... and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for certain TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris “might” be appropriately given priority over others... Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement sending the message to the board than the specifics. If people feel strongly about the sentence, I can live with it. Edmon From: JJS [mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim Cc: Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants Thanks Edmon and Rinalia, I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the deletion of the following sentence? "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." Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"? Jean-Jacques. 2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement. Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support or disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have questions or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as well. If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to amend the statement. Best regards, Rinalia On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin...
And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their applications.
I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such “variant or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model To take out the sentence: " 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."
3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model 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. ICANN already has all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could help improve the statement.
Edmon
> 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
-- 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13
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+I
CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants
> > 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
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants.
I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems variants would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are considered common data items and stored in the common database.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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@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
_______________________________________________ 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 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
Dear Jean-Jacques and Edmon, Would the following be an acceptable middle ground? "In principle, the At-Large community does not support over-extensive trademark protection measures. However, we do strongly believe that users from all language communities should be protected from confusion equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademarks." Best regards, Rinalia On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for:
“ICANN should treat all trademarks equally”
Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are different types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered, etc... and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for certain TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris “might” be appropriately given priority over others...
Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement sending the message to the board than the specifics. If people feel strongly about the sentence, I can live with it.
Edmon
*From:* JJS [mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM *To:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim *Cc:* Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List *Subject:* Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
*Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,*
*I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the deletion of the following sentence? *
"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."
*Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?*
*Jean-Jacques.*
2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.
Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support or disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have questions or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as well.
If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to amend the statement.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin...
And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their applications.
I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such
“variant
or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model To take out the sentence: " 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."
3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model 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. ICANN already has all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could help improve the statement.
Edmon
> > 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
> _______________________________________________ > 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
>
-- 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13
> 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+I
CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants
> > > > 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
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants.
I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems variants would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are considered common data items and stored in the common database.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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@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
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
*Thank you Rinalia, that's fine for me.* *Jean-Jacques.* 2013/5/4 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Dear Jean-Jacques and Edmon,
Would the following be an acceptable middle ground?
"In principle, the At-Large community does not support over-extensive trademark protection measures. However, we do strongly believe that users from all language communities should be protected from confusion equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademarks."
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for:
“ICANN should treat all trademarks equally”
Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are different types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered, etc... and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for certain TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris “might” be appropriately given priority over others...
Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement sending the message to the board than the specifics. If people feel strongly about the sentence, I can live with it.
Edmon
*From:* JJS [mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM *To:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim *Cc:* Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List *Subject:* Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
*Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,*
*I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the deletion of the following sentence? *
"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."
*Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?*
*Jean-Jacques.*
2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.
Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support or disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have questions or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as well.
If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to amend the statement.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin...
And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their applications.
I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from
“variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such “variant or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model To take out the sentence: " 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."
3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model 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. ICANN already has all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could help improve the statement.
Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants.
I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems variants would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are considered common data items and stored in the common database.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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@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
>> 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+I
CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants
>> > >> > 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,
implementing 2013.
>> > 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
>> _______________________________________________ >> 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
>> > > > > -- > 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13
>> > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
Hi Rinalia I think the sentence strikes the right balance. Well done Holly On 04/05/2013, at 4:09 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
Dear Jean-Jacques and Edmon,
Would the following be an acceptable middle ground?
"In principle, the At-Large community does not support over-extensive trademark protection measures. However, we do strongly believe that users from all language communities should be protected from confusion equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademarks."
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for:
“ICANN should treat all trademarks equally”
Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are different types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered, etc... and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for certain TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris “might” be appropriately given priority over others...
Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement sending the message to the board than the specifics. If people feel strongly about the sentence, I can live with it.
Edmon
*From:* JJS [mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM *To:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim *Cc:* Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List *Subject:* Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
*Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,*
*I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the deletion of the following sentence? *
"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."
*Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?*
*Jean-Jacques.*
2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.
Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support or disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have questions or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as well.
If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to amend the statement.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin...
And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their applications.
I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such
“variant
or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model To take out the sentence: " 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."
3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model 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. ICANN already has all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could help improve the statement.
Edmon
>>> 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
>> _______________________________________________ >> 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
>> > > > > -- > 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13
>> 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+I
CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants
>>> >>> 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
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants.
I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems variants would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are considered common data items and stored in the common database.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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@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
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
Sounds good. Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2013 8:51 AM To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim Cc: Edmon; JJS; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] [ALAC] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
Hi Rinalia
I think the sentence strikes the right balance. Well done
Holly On 04/05/2013, at 4:09 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
Dear Jean-Jacques and Edmon,
Would the following be an acceptable middle ground?
"In principle, the At-Large community does not support over-extensive trademark protection measures. However, we do strongly believe that users from all language communities should be protected from confusion equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademarks."
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for:
“ICANN should treat all trademarks equally”
Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are different types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered, etc... and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for certain TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris “might” be appropriately given priority over others...
Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement sending the message to the board than the specifics. If people feel strongly about the sentence, I can live with it.
Edmon
*From:* JJS [mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM *To:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim *Cc:* Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List *Subject:* Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
*Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,*
*I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the deletion of the following sentence? *
"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."
*Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?*
*Jean-Jacques.*
2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.
Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support or disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have questions or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as well.
If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to amend the statement.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At- Large+Trademark+
Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants+Workspace?focusedCommentId=418836 44#co
mment-41883644
And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their applications.
I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such
“variant
or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model To take out the sentence: " 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."
3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model 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. ICANN already has all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could help improve the statement.
Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants.
I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems variants would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are considered common data items and stored in the common database.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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@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
>>> 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 - >>>> >>>> >>> >
e+I
CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants >>>> >>>> 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
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+th 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+Committe e+(ALAC) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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+Committe e+(ALAC) >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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+Committe e+(ALAC) > > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
Hello again, everyone. Based on Edmon's input and the responses to date, please find below a revised draft "ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark Clearinghouse and IDN Variants." Blue text represents the input provided by Edmon (slightly tweaked for smooth integration into the overall text). Red text represents my proposed addition to clarify why the Root LGR is applicable and has value for addressing the problem, plus an additional recommendation for the Board based on Edmon's contribution. Feedback appreciated for finalization a.s.a.p. on the policy development wiki workspace located here: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants+Workspace Best regards, Rinalia *Revised **Version: May 5th, 2013* *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. If implemented, the model would clearly run against the public interest in the pertinent user communities. We wish to highlight two areas of particular concern in the recently published Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) requirements: Domain name matching and bundling. * * *Domain Name Matching* Since October 2011, 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. Despite concerns raised by language community experts in the TMCH Implementation Assistance Group (IAG), the newly published 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. * * *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. The TMCH requirements grant absolute first rights to trademark holders, which not only pre-empted certain business models, but also prevented registries from implementing “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such “variant or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period. * * *Towards 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. 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. 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 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 will create a framework for a more consistent management of variants across all levels. Experts and Staff have projected that this process will 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. We believe that ICANN already has all the necessary information to develop these solutions based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that were required as part of the application submissions for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations. The development of the solutions 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. * * *Summary of Recommendations to the ICANN Board* 1. Call for a more open and flexible TMCH model that is variants-friendly and support a community-based, bottom-up solution for TMCH implementation. 2. Ensure the IDN variant issue is addressed before the TMCH begin providing services to the new gTLD registries. 3. Request from the ICANN CEO an interim mechanism that can yield appropriate solutions efficiently and on an urgent basis that may involve: - Additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities, who will work in tandem with community members with relevant expertise. - A consideration for expediting the LGR process for the Han script. - Reviewing the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies submitted by new gTLD applicants offering IDN registrations as a basis for developing the solutions. END On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote: > Sounds good. > Edmon > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] > > Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2013 8:51 AM > > To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim > > Cc: Edmon; JJS; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List > > Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] [ALAC] Draft Statement on TMCH and > > Variants > > > > Hi Rinalia > > > > I think the sentence strikes the right balance. Well done > > > > Holly > > On 04/05/2013, at 4:09 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: > > > > > Dear Jean-Jacques and Edmon, > > > > > > Would the following be an acceptable middle ground? > > > > > > "In principle, the At-Large community does not support over-extensive > > > trademark protection measures. > > > However, we do strongly believe that users from all language > > > communities should be protected from confusion equally, irrespective > > > of the characters of the trademarks." > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Rinalia > > > > > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote: > > > > > >> I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for: > > >> > > >> “ICANN should treat all trademarks equally” > > >> > > >> Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are > > >> different types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, > > Unregistered, etc... > > >> and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for > > >> certain TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM > > >> from Paris “might” be appropriately given priority over others... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement > > >> sending the message to the board than the specifics. If people feel > > >> strongly about the sentence, I can live with it. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Edmon > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> *From:* JJS [mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com] > > >> *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM > > >> *To:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim > > >> *Cc:* Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List > > >> *Subject:* Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH > > >> and Variants > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> *Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,* > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> *I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the > > >> deletion of the following sentence? * > > >> > > >> "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." > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> *Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?* > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> *Jean-Jacques.* > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> > > >> > > >> Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement. > > >> > > >> Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of > > >> support or disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If > > >> you have questions or a need for clarification from Edmon on his > > >> proposal, please pose them as well. > > >> > > >> If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement > > >> to amend the statement. > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> Rinalia > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Everyone, > > >>> > > >>> Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at: > > >>> > > >> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At- > > Large+Trademark+ > > >> > > Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants+Workspace?focusedCommentId=418836 > > 44#co > > >> mment-41883644 > > >>> > > >>> And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. > > >>> I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about > > >>> IDN Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH > > >>> MUST implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why > > >>> they cannot based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN > > >>> in their applications. > > >>> > > >>> I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted: > > >>> > > >>> 1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling The recently presented > > >>> TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first rights to trademark > > >>> holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted certain business > > >>> models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing “variant or > > >>> bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such > > >> “variant > > >>> or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period. > > >>> > > >>> 2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible > > >>> TMCH Model To take out the sentence: " 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." > > >>> > > >>> 3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible > > >>> TMCH Model 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. ICANN already > > >> has > > >>> all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables > > >>> and > > >> IDN > > >>> Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of > > >>> the application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above > > >>> could help improve the statement. > > >>> > > >>> Edmon > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: > > >> alac-bounces@atlarge- > > >>>> lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM > > >>>> To: Alan Greenberg > > >>>> Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH > > >>>> and Variants > > >>>> > > >>>> What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and > configuration. > > >>>> What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for > > >> variants. > > >>>> > > >>>> I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems > > >>> variants > > >>>> would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks > > >>>> are considered common data items and stored in the common > > database. > > >>>> > > >>>> -Carlton > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ============================== > > >>>> Carlton A Samuels > > >>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799 > > >>>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > >>>> ============================= > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg > > >>>> <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> 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@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+th > > >>>> e+I > > >>>>> CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> 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+Committe > > >>>>> e+(ALAC) > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>> 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+Committe > > >>>>> e+(ALAC) > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> 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+Committe > > >>>>> e+(ALAC) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>> APAC-Discuss mailing list > > >>>>>> APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> 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+Committe > > >>>>> e+(ALAC) > > >>>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> 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+(ALAC) > > >>>> > > >>>> ----- > > >>>> No virus found in this message. > > >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > >>>> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: > > >> 04/23/13 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> 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 > > >> > > >> > > >> ------------------------------ > > >> No virus found in this message. > > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > >> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: > > >> 05/02/13 > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > APAC-Discuss mailing list > > > APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > > > > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13 > >
I'm pleased to see the updated statement and re-affirm my vote! Best, -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello again, everyone.
Based on Edmon's input and the responses to date, please find below a revised draft "ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark Clearinghouse and IDN Variants." Blue text represents the input provided by Edmon (slightly tweaked for smooth integration into the overall text). Red text represents my proposed addition to clarify why the Root LGR is applicable and has value for addressing the problem, plus an additional recommendation for the Board based on Edmon's contribution.
Feedback appreciated for finalization a.s.a.p. on the policy development wiki workspace located here:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin...
Best regards,
Rinalia
*Revised **Version: May 5th, 2013*
*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. If implemented, the model would clearly run against the public interest in the pertinent user communities.
We wish to highlight two areas of particular concern in the recently published Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) requirements: Domain name matching and bundling.
* *
*Domain Name Matching*
Since October 2011, 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. Despite concerns raised by language community experts in the TMCH Implementation Assistance Group (IAG), the newly published 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.
* *
*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.
The TMCH requirements grant absolute first rights to trademark holders, which not only pre-empted certain business models, but also prevented registries from implementing “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such “variant or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
* *
*Towards 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. 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. 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 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 will create a framework for a more consistent management of variants across all levels. Experts and Staff have projected that this process will 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. We believe that ICANN already has all the necessary information to develop these solutions based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that were required as part of the application submissions for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations. The development of the solutions 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.
* *
*Summary of Recommendations to the ICANN Board*
1. Call for a more open and flexible TMCH model that is variants-friendly and support a community-based, bottom-up solution for TMCH implementation. 2. Ensure the IDN variant issue is addressed before the TMCH begin providing services to the new gTLD registries. 3. Request from the ICANN CEO an interim mechanism that can yield appropriate solutions efficiently and on an urgent basis that may involve:
- Additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities, who will work in tandem with community members with relevant expertise. - A consideration for expediting the LGR process for the Han script. - Reviewing the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies submitted by new gTLD applicants offering IDN registrations as a basis for developing the solutions.
END
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
Sounds good. Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2013 8:51 AM To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim Cc: Edmon; JJS; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] [ALAC] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
Hi Rinalia
I think the sentence strikes the right balance. Well done
Holly On 04/05/2013, at 4:09 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
Dear Jean-Jacques and Edmon,
Would the following be an acceptable middle ground?
"In principle, the At-Large community does not support over-extensive trademark protection measures. However, we do strongly believe that users from all language communities should be protected from confusion equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademarks."
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for:
“ICANN should treat all trademarks equally”
Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are different types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered, etc... and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for certain TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris “might” be appropriately given priority over others...
Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement sending the message to the board than the specifics. If people feel strongly about the sentence, I can live with it.
Edmon
*From:* JJS [mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM *To:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim *Cc:* Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List *Subject:* Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
*Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,*
*I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the deletion of the following sentence? *
"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."
*Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?*
*Jean-Jacques.*
2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.
Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support or disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have questions or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as well.
If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to amend the statement.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At- Large+Trademark+
Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants+Workspace?focusedCommentId=418836 44#co
mment-41883644
And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious
about
IDN Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their applications.
I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such “variant or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model To take out the sentence: " 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."
3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model 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. ICANN already has all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could help improve the statement.
Edmon
> -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge- > lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM > To: Alan Greenberg > Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo > Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH > and Variants > > What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. > What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants. > > I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems variants > would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks > are considered common data items and stored in the common database. > > -Carlton > > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote: > >> 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@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+th > e+I >> CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants >>>>>> >>>>>> 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,
>>>>>> 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+Committe >> e+(ALAC) >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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+Committe >> e+(ALAC) >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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+Committe >> e+(ALAC) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> APAC-Discuss mailing list >>> APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss >>> >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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+Committe >> e+(ALAC) >> > _______________________________________________ > 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+(ALAC) > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Thanks to Edmon for referring to the sentence, “ICANN should treat all trademarks equally” . When completing the draft at the late night after the gala event in Beijing, I was actually thinking-- (1) "ICANN RPM should treat the trademarks in any language or character set equally", because [ as JJS stated] "users in any language community should be protected from confusion equally". In addition, I strongly suggest including the following points. (2) "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. Confusion over the sources or origins of the goods or services can be very destructive, particularly in the fields of banking, insurance and other high-security businesses." (3) Revised one item in the Recommendation
From "Additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities, who will work in tandem with community members with relevant expertise" to "ICANN (staff) supports the community members with relevant expertise to develop interim variants-capable trademark authentication/ verification services that are interoperable with the TMCH so as to enable the timely launch of the IDN TLDs."
I've updated onto the wiki and wish for its speedy endorsement from the at-large community. Hong On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for:
“ICANN should treat all trademarks equally”
Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are different types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered, etc... and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for certain TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris “might” be appropriately given priority over others...
Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement sending the message to the board than the specifics. If people feel strongly about the sentence, I can live with it.
Edmon
From: JJS [mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim Cc: Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,
I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the deletion of the following sentence?
"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."
Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?
Jean-Jacques.
2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.
Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support or disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have questions or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as well.
If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to amend the statement.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin...
And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their applications.
I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such
“variant
or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model To take out the sentence: " 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."
3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model 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. ICANN already has all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could help improve the statement.
Edmon
> > 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
> _______________________________________________ > 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
>
-- 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13
> 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+I
CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants
> > > > 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
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants.
I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems variants would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are considered common data items and stored in the common database.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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@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
_______________________________________________ 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
_____
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- 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, your suggested (1) appears clearer than the current "ICANN should treat all trademarks equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademark". Also - to all involved, since several amendments are being made to this Statement after it has been voted on, the ALAC will need to ratify this Statement again. Amendments are significant enough to warrant a new vote. Please be so kind to let me know when you have found a consensus and are ready to freeze the Statement once and for all, to start a new vote. Kind regards, Olivier On 06/05/2013 13:01, Hong Xue wrote:
Thanks to Edmon for referring to the sentence, “ICANN should treat all trademarks equally” . When completing the draft at the late night after the gala event in Beijing, I was actually thinking--
(1) "ICANN RPM should treat the trademarks in any language or character set equally", because [ as JJS stated] "users in any language community should be protected from confusion equally".
In addition, I strongly suggest including the following points.
(2) "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. Confusion over the sources or origins of the goods or services can be very destructive, particularly in the fields of banking, insurance and other high-security businesses."
(3) Revised one item in the Recommendation
From "Additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities, who will work in tandem with community members with relevant expertise" to "ICANN (staff) supports the community members with relevant expertise to develop interim variants-capable trademark authentication/ verification services that are interoperable with the TMCH so as to enable the timely launch of the IDN TLDs."
I've updated onto the wiki and wish for its speedy endorsement from the at-large community.
Hong
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for:
“ICANN should treat all trademarks equally”
Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are different types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered, etc... and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for certain TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris “might” be appropriately given priority over others...
Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement sending the message to the board than the specifics. If people feel strongly about the sentence, I can live with it.
Edmon
From: JJS [mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim Cc: Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,
I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the deletion of the following sentence?
"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."
Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?
Jean-Jacques.
2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.
Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support or disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have questions or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as well.
If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to amend the statement.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin...
And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their applications.
I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such “variant or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model To take out the sentence: " 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."
3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model 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. ICANN already has all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could help improve the statement.
Edmon
>>> 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+Committe e+(ALAC) >> _______________________________________________ >> 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+Committe e+(ALAC) > > > -- > 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+Committe e+(ALAC) _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13
>> 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+I CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants >>> 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
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants. I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems variants would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are considered common data items and stored in the common database.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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@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
_______________________________________________ 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
_____
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Dear Oliver, I was not aware that the Statement had been voted when sending out these revisions. I saw actually many people were still editing and improving it. But you are right that we need to freeze it sooner rather than later for the submission to the Board. We are already late for the RA process and the interim solution we propose may be too late to be taken into account. Hong On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Dear Hong,
your suggested (1) appears clearer than the current "ICANN should treat all trademarks equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademark".
Also - to all involved, since several amendments are being made to this Statement after it has been voted on, the ALAC will need to ratify this Statement again. Amendments are significant enough to warrant a new vote. Please be so kind to let me know when you have found a consensus and are ready to freeze the Statement once and for all, to start a new vote.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 06/05/2013 13:01, Hong Xue wrote:
Thanks to Edmon for referring to the sentence, “ICANN should treat all trademarks equally” . When completing the draft at the late night after the gala event in Beijing, I was actually thinking--
(1) "ICANN RPM should treat the trademarks in any language or character set equally", because [ as JJS stated] "users in any language community should be protected from confusion equally".
In addition, I strongly suggest including the following points.
(2) "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. Confusion over the sources or origins of the goods or services can be very destructive, particularly in the fields of banking, insurance and other high-security businesses."
(3) Revised one item in the Recommendation
From "Additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities, who will work in tandem with community members with relevant expertise" to "ICANN (staff) supports the community members with relevant expertise to develop interim variants-capable trademark authentication/ verification services that are interoperable with the TMCH so as to enable the timely launch of the IDN TLDs."
I've updated onto the wiki and wish for its speedy endorsement from the at-large community.
Hong
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for:
“ICANN should treat all trademarks equally”
Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are different types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered, etc... and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for certain TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris “might” be appropriately given priority over others...
Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement sending the message to the board than the specifics. If people feel strongly about the sentence, I can live with it.
Edmon
From: JJS [mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim Cc: Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,
I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the deletion of the following sentence?
"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."
Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?
Jean-Jacques.
2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.
Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support or disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have questions or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as well.
If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to amend the statement.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin...
And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their applications.
I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such “variant or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model To take out the sentence: " 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."
3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model 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. ICANN already has all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could help improve the statement.
Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants. I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems variants would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are considered common data items and stored in the common database.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
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@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
>>> 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 - >>>> >>>>
CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants >>>> 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
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+the+I 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+Committe e+(ALAC) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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+Committe e+(ALAC) >> >> >> -- >> 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+Committe e+(ALAC) > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13
_______________________________________________ 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
_____
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- 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
Hello everyone, Jean-Jacques and I have responded to Hong's suggestions via the wiki. If there are other comments please do post them as soon as possible so that we can finalize the advice at https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants+Workspace . I believe we are near consensus on the contents. Best regards, Rinalia On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Oliver, > > I was not aware that the Statement had been voted when sending out these > revisions. I saw actually many people were still editing and improving it. > But you are right that we need to freeze it sooner rather than later for > the submission to the Board. We are already late for the RA process and the > interim solution we propose may be too late to be taken into account. > > Hong > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com > >wrote: > > > Dear Hong, > > > > your suggested (1) appears clearer than the current "ICANN should treat > > all trademarks equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademark". > > > > Also - to all involved, since several amendments are being made to this > > Statement after it has been voted on, the ALAC will need to ratify this > > Statement again. Amendments are significant enough to warrant a new > > vote. Please be so kind to let me know when you have found a consensus > > and are ready to freeze the Statement once and for all, to start a new > > vote. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Olivier > > > > On 06/05/2013 13:01, Hong Xue wrote: > > > Thanks to Edmon for referring to the sentence, “ICANN should treat all > > > trademarks equally” . When completing the draft at the late night after > > the > > > gala event in Beijing, I was actually thinking-- > > > > > > (1) "ICANN RPM should treat the trademarks in any language or character > > set > > > equally", because [ as JJS stated] "users in any language community > > should > > > be protected from confusion equally". > > > > > > In addition, I strongly suggest including the following points. > > > > > > (2) "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. > > > Confusion over the sources or origins of the goods or services can be > > very > > > destructive, particularly in the fields of banking, insurance and other > > > high-security businesses." > > > > > > (3) Revised one item in the Recommendation > > > > > > >From "Additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities, > who > > > will work in tandem with community members with relevant expertise" to > > > "ICANN (staff) supports the community members with relevant expertise > to > > > develop interim variants-capable trademark authentication/ verification > > > services that are interoperable with the TMCH so as to enable the > timely > > > launch of the IDN TLDs." > > > > > > I've updated onto the wiki and wish for its speedy endorsement from the > > > at-large community. > > > > > > Hong > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote: > > > > > >> I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for: > > >> > > >> “ICANN should treat all trademarks equally” > > >> > > >> Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are > different > > >> types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered, > > etc... > > >> and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for > > certain > > >> TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris > > >> “might” be appropriately given priority over others... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement > > >> sending the message to the board than the specifics. If people feel > > >> strongly about the sentence, I can live with it. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Edmon > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> From: JJS [mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com] > > >> Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM > > >> To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim > > >> Cc: Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List > > >> Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH > and > > >> Variants > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks Edmon and Rinalia, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the > deletion > > of > > >> the following sentence? > > >> > > >> "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." > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Jean-Jacques. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> > > >> > > >> Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement. > > >> > > >> Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support > > or > > >> disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have > > questions > > >> or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose > > them as > > >> well. > > >> > > >> If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to > > >> amend the statement. > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> Rinalia > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Everyone, > > >>> > > >>> Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at: > > >>> > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants+Workspace?focusedCommentId=41883644#comment-41883644 > > >>> And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. > > >>> I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about > > IDN > > >>> Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST > > >>> implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they > cannot > > >>> based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their > > >>> applications. > > >>> > > >>> I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted: > > >>> > > >>> 1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling > > >>> The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute > first > > >>> rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only > pre-empted > > >>> certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from > > implementing > > >>> “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such > > >> “variant > > >>> or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period. > > >>> > > >>> 2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible > TMCH > > >>> Model > > >>> To take out the sentence: " 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." > > >>> > > >>> 3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible > > TMCH > > >>> Model > > >>> 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. ICANN > already > > >> has > > >>> all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables > and > > >> IDN > > >>> Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the > > >>> application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above > could > > >>> help improve the statement. > > >>> > > >>> Edmon > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: > > >> alac-bounces@atlarge- > > >>>> lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM > > >>>> To: Alan Greenberg > > >>>> Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo > > >>>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH > > and > > >>>> Variants > > >>>> > > >>>> What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and > configuration. > > >>>> What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for > > >> variants. > > >>>> I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems > > >>> variants > > >>>> would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are > > >>>> considered common data items and stored in the common database. > > >>>> > > >>>> -Carlton > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ============================== > > >>>> Carlton A Samuels > > >>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799 > > >>>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > >>>> ============================= > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg > > >>>> <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> 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@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+I > > >>>>> CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants > > >>>>>>>>> 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+Committe > > >>>>> e+(ALAC) > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>> 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+Committe > > >>>>> e+(ALAC) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> 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+Committe > > >>>>> e+(ALAC) > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>> APAC-Discuss mailing list > > >>>>>> APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > > >>>>> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> 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+Committe > > >>>>> e+(ALAC) > > >>>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> 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+(ALAC) > > >>>> > > >>>> ----- > > >>>> No virus found in this message. > > >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > >>>> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: > > >> 04/23/13 > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> 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 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _____ > > >> > > >> No virus found in this message. > > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > >> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: > > 05/02/13 > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> APAC-Discuss mailing list > > >> APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > >> > > >> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Hong, Rinalia, Firstly, thank you for doing the heavy lifting. I have added my thoughts on the wiki, after the most recent revision by Rinalia. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Jean-Jacques and I have responded to Hong's suggestions via the wiki. If there are other comments please do post them as soon as possible so that we can finalize the advice at
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin... .
I believe we are near consensus on the contents.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Oliver,
I was not aware that the Statement had been voted when sending out these revisions. I saw actually many people were still editing and improving it. But you are right that we need to freeze it sooner rather than later for the submission to the Board. We are already late for the RA process and the interim solution we propose may be too late to be taken into account.
Hong
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com
wrote:
Dear Hong,
your suggested (1) appears clearer than the current "ICANN should treat all trademarks equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademark".
Also - to all involved, since several amendments are being made to this Statement after it has been voted on, the ALAC will need to ratify this Statement again. Amendments are significant enough to warrant a new vote. Please be so kind to let me know when you have found a consensus and are ready to freeze the Statement once and for all, to start a new vote.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 06/05/2013 13:01, Hong Xue wrote:
Thanks to Edmon for referring to the sentence, “ICANN should treat all trademarks equally” . When completing the draft at the late night after the gala event in Beijing, I was actually thinking--
(1) "ICANN RPM should treat the trademarks in any language or character set equally", because [ as JJS stated] "users in any language community should be protected from confusion equally".
In addition, I strongly suggest including the following points.
(2) "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. Confusion over the sources or origins of the goods or services can be very destructive, particularly in the fields of banking, insurance and other high-security businesses."
(3) Revised one item in the Recommendation
From "Additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities, who will work in tandem with community members with relevant expertise" to "ICANN (staff) supports the community members with relevant expertise to develop interim variants-capable trademark authentication/ verification services that are interoperable with the TMCH so as to enable the timely launch of the IDN TLDs."
I've updated onto the wiki and wish for its speedy endorsement from the at-large community.
Hong
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for:
“ICANN should treat all trademarks equally”
Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are different types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered, etc... and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for certain TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris “might” be appropriately given priority over others...
Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement sending the message to the board than the specifics. If people feel strongly about the sentence, I can live with it.
Edmon
From: JJS [mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim Cc: Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,
I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the deletion of the following sentence?
"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."
Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?
Jean-Jacques.
2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.
Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support or disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have questions or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as well.
If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to amend the statement.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at:
And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their applications.
I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such “variant or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model To take out the sentence: " 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."
3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model 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. ICANN already has all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could help improve the statement.
Edmon
> -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge- > lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM > To: Alan Greenberg > Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo > Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and > Variants > > What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. > What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants. > I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems variants > would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are > considered common data items and stored in the common database. > > -Carlton > > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote: > >> 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@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+I >> CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants >>>>>> 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,
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin... 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+Committe >> e+(ALAC) >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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+Committe >> e+(ALAC) >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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+Committe >> e+(ALAC) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> APAC-Discuss mailing list >>> APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss >>> >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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+Committe >> e+(ALAC) >> > _______________________________________________ > 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+(ALAC) > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13
_______________________________________________ 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
_____
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- 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 _______________________________________________ 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
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com
Dear Sala, Thank you for your contribution! Hong and I have reviewed it. We both feel that it is largely consistent with the prepared statement and we are most appreciative of the indication of support. We have recommended that the statement (version 9 May 2013) proceed for an ALAC vote. Best regards, Rinalia On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Hong, Rinalia,
Firstly, thank you for doing the heavy lifting. I have added my thoughts on the wiki, after the most recent revision by Rinalia.
Kind Regards, Sala
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Jean-Jacques and I have responded to Hong's suggestions via the wiki. If there are other comments please do post them as soon as possible so that we can finalize the advice at
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin... .
I believe we are near consensus on the contents.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Oliver,
I was not aware that the Statement had been voted when sending out these revisions. I saw actually many people were still editing and improving it. But you are right that we need to freeze it sooner rather than later for the submission to the Board. We are already late for the RA process and the interim solution we propose may be too late to be taken into account.
Hong
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com
wrote:
Dear Hong,
your suggested (1) appears clearer than the current "ICANN should treat all trademarks equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademark".
Also - to all involved, since several amendments are being made to this Statement after it has been voted on, the ALAC will need to ratify this Statement again. Amendments are significant enough to warrant a new vote. Please be so kind to let me know when you have found a consensus and are ready to freeze the Statement once and for all, to start a new vote.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 06/05/2013 13:01, Hong Xue wrote:
Thanks to Edmon for referring to the sentence, “ICANN should treat all trademarks equally” . When completing the draft at the late night after the gala event in Beijing, I was actually thinking--
(1) "ICANN RPM should treat the trademarks in any language or character set equally", because [ as JJS stated] "users in any language community should be protected from confusion equally".
In addition, I strongly suggest including the following points.
(2) "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. Confusion over the sources or origins of the goods or services can be very destructive, particularly in the fields of banking, insurance and other high-security businesses."
(3) Revised one item in the Recommendation
From "Additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities, who will work in tandem with community members with relevant expertise" to "ICANN (staff) supports the community members with relevant expertise to develop interim variants-capable trademark authentication/ verification services that are interoperable with the TMCH so as to enable the timely launch of the IDN TLDs."
I've updated onto the wiki and wish for its speedy endorsement from the at-large community.
Hong
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for:
“ICANN should treat all trademarks equally”
Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are different types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered, etc... and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for certain TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris “might” be appropriately given priority over others...
Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement sending the message to the board than the specifics. If people feel strongly about the sentence, I can live with it.
Edmon
From: JJS [mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim Cc: Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,
I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the deletion of the following sentence?
"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."
Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?
Jean-Jacques.
2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>
Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.
Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions? Indications of support or disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated. If you have questions or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose them as well.
If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to amend the statement.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
> Hi Everyone, > > Sorry for the late comments. I read the draft at: >
> And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement. > I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about IDN > Variants is real and it will be too late before long. The TMCH MUST > implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they cannot > based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their > applications. > > I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted: > > 1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling > The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute first > rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only pre-empted > certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from implementing > “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such “variant > or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period. > > 2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH > Model > To take out the sentence: " 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." > > 3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible TMCH > Model > 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. ICANN already has > all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables and IDN > Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the > application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations. > > > I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above could > help improve the statement. > > Edmon > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge- >> lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels >> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM >> To: Alan Greenberg >> Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo >> Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and >> Variants >> >> What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and configuration. >> What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for variants. >> I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems > variants >> would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are >> considered common data items and stored in the common database. >> >> -Carlton >> >> >> ============================== >> Carlton A Samuels >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 >> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >> ============================= >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg >> <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote: >> >>> 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@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+I
>>> CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants >>>>>>> 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,
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearin... 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+Committe >>> e+(ALAC) >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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+Committe >>> e+(ALAC) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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+Committe >>> e+(ALAC) >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> APAC-Discuss mailing list >>>> APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss >>>> >>>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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+Committe >>> e+(ALAC) >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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+(ALAC) >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date: 04/23/13 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_____
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date: 05/02/13
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- 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 _______________________________________________ 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
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Edmon -
Holly Raiche -
Hong Xue -
JJS -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro