Fwd: At-Large Position Statement
The following note and attachment has been submitted to the GNSO STI Review Team on behalf of Olivier and me and the Names Issues Task Force.
To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: At-Large Position Statement
Please find attached the At-Large Position Statement.
Note that:
- Items 10 an 18 on notices raise the critical issue of language which has not as yet been discussed in the STI Review Team.
- Item 17 on the URS response period proposes new URS timing and process which should substantially benefit both TM holders and registrants.
- Item 22 on URS periodic review introduces a new and problematic issue that has previously not been discussed by the STI Review Team.
- Item 24 raises the issue of Clearinghouse fees.
Alan
Alan , Olivier Excelente doc. From my point of view it addresses the concerns we had. It still not clear for me, but it is not our business, is how the claringhouse can be a sustainable operation. Thanks for the work Best cid:image002.jpg@01C93E96.B7BF8BD0 Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55.11.3266.6253 Mob- +55.11.8181.1464 <mailto:vanda@uol.com.br> vanda@uol.com.br -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 5:21 PM To: ALAC Working List Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement The following note and attachment has been submitted to the GNSO STI Review Team on behalf of Olivier and me and the Names Issues Task Force.
To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti@icann.org>
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Subject: At-Large Position Statement
Please find attached the At-Large Position Statement.
Note that:
- Items 10 an 18 on notices raise the critical issue of language which
has not as yet been discussed in the STI Review Team.
- Item 17 on the URS response period proposes new URS timing and
process which should substantially benefit both TM holders and registrants.
- Item 22 on URS periodic review introduces a new and problematic issue
that has previously not been discussed by the STI Review Team.
- Item 24 raises the issue of Clearinghouse fees.
Alan
Thanks. It will be sustainable if: 1) there are sufficient mark holders that are interested in its service at fees that will sustain it AND 2) there are sufficient new gTLDs going live to need its services. 2 could be irrelevant if there is a decision to make the Clearinghouse apply to post-launch as well. Alan At 08/11/2009 08:53 AM, Vanda UOL wrote:
Alan , Olivier Excelente doc. From my point of view it addresses the concerns we had. It still not clear for me, but it is not our business, is how the claringhouse can be a sustainable operation. Thanks for the work Best
cid:image002.jpg@01C93E96.B7BF8BD0
Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55.11.3266.6253 Mob- +55.11.8181.1464 <mailto:vanda@uol.com.br>vanda@uol.com.br
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 5:21 PM To: ALAC Working List Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement
The following note and attachment has been submitted to the GNSO STI Review Team on behalf of Olivier and me and the Names Issues Task Force.
To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: At-Large Position Statement
Please find attached the At-Large Position Statement.
Note that:
- Items 10 an 18 on notices raise the critical issue of language which has not as yet been discussed in the STI Review Team.
- Item 17 on the URS response period proposes new URS timing and process which should substantially benefit both TM holders and registrants.
- Item 22 on URS periodic review introduces a new and problematic issue that has previously not been discussed by the STI Review Team.
- Item 24 raises the issue of Clearinghouse fees.
Alan
Greetings from Las Vegas, my first non-conference, non-family travel in years (current gambling tally: -$91 after two days) Alan and Olivier have done a fantastic job in assembling together a compendium of diverse views while still tracking the work being done on this issue within the NCUC and GNSO's STI working group. The only deficiency I see is beyond the bounds of the specific issues raised by the Board, because (IMO) the Board has been listening to the IPC and US government and is seeing the issues within those groups' frames of reference. What I mean to say is... there seems to be an asssumption that all the brand owners are working in good faith and (at least most of) the targets of their UDRP/URS actions are working in bad faith. But what protections exist to prevent abuse? How do we protect legitimate brand protection interests while protecting harrassment good-faith use that brand owners don't want? (ie, "this-brand-sucks.tld") Such good-faith registrants are usually low in the resources needed, and brand owners can use the processes to hound them into submission. This is of significant concern to me as we move to opening up new TLDs. The NCUC has been addressing this internally, but such issues have not appeared to make their way into the thought process of the Board (or the STI) in dealing with this issue. Is this considered a significant issue within At-Large? How do we best (re-)introduce this issue, which goes beyond the Board's charge to GNSO? - Evan
Dear all, Evan Leibovitch wrote Mon, 9 Nov 2009 03:26: (...)
Alan and Olivier have done a fantastic job in assembling together a compendium of diverse views while still tracking the work being done on this issue within the NCUC and GNSO's STI working group.
The only deficiency I see is beyond the bounds of the specific issues raised by the Board, because (IMO) the Board has been listening to the IPC and US government and is seeing the issues within those groups' frames of reference.
What I mean to say is... there seems to be an asssumption that all the brand owners are working in good faith and (at least most of) the targets of their UDRP/URS actions are working in bad faith. But what protections exist to prevent abuse? How do we protect legitimate brand protection interests while protecting harrassment good-faith use that brand owners don't want? (ie, "this-brand-sucks.tld") Such good-faith registrants are usually low in the resources needed, and brand owners can use the processes to hound them into submission. This is of significant concern to me as we move to opening up new TLDs.
The NCUC has been addressing this internally, but such issues have not appeared to make their way into the thought process of the Board (or the STI) in dealing with this issue.
Is this considered a significant issue within At-Large? How do we best (re-)introduce this issue, which goes beyond the Board's charge to GNSO?
I fully support the concerns and questions raised by Evan and, I think, this should be an issue for ALAC (and RALOs). And THANKS to Alan and Olivier for the excellent preparation and piece of work! Best, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allmend http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
2009/11/9 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Thanks.
It will be sustainable if: 1) there are sufficient mark holders that are interested in its service at fees that will sustain it AND 2) there are sufficient new gTLDs going live to need its services.
3) The system implements a pricing regime that is at least based on cost recovery. This may be assumed but I wonder... the price cannot be set too low so to please mark holders, and must reflect the true cost of mark holders. If mark holders want to lobby governments and WIPO for subsidy, that's their business, but we can't keep the price of registration/maintenance artificially low. As for concerns about sustainability, I would think that you couldn't have a clearinghouse without recurring maintenance fees. Given that TMs need to be continually seerted/defended to stay live, it seems only reasonable that all entries in the clearinghouse require periodic renewal. If renewal fees are pricved to reflect cost recovery, sustainability need not be an issue. - Evan
There is another component of the cost model. Registries currently must bear the full cost of their sunrise processes. The Clearinghouse will relieve them of part of this, os it is reasonable that the registries (and perhaps registrars) who use the services also pay part of the costs. Alan At 09/11/2009 11:40 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
2009/11/9 Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Thanks. It will be sustainable if: 1) there are sufficient mark holders that are interested in its service at fees that will sustain it AND 2) there are sufficient new gTLDs going live to need its services.
3) The system implements a pricing regime that is at least based on cost recovery.
This may be assumed but I wonder... the price cannot be set too low so to please mark holders, and must reflect the true cost of mark holders. If mark holders want to lobby governments and WIPO for subsidy, that's their business, but we can't keep the price of registration/maintenance artificially low.
As for concerns about sustainability, I would think that you couldn't have a clearinghouse without recurring maintenance fees. Given that TMs need to be continually seerted/defended to stay live, it seems only reasonable that all entries in the clearinghouse require periodic renewal. If renewal fees are pricved to reflect cost recovery, sustainability need not be an issue.
- Evan
Olivier & Alan: Great Job ! Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org
From: vanda@uol.com.br To: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:53:04 -0200 CC: ocl@gih.com Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement
Alan , Olivier
Excelente doc. From my point of view it addresses the concerns we had. It still not clear for me, but it is not our business, is how the claringhouse can be a sustainable operation.
Thanks for the work
Best
cid:image002.jpg@01C93E96.B7BF8BD0
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Alameda Santos 1470 #1407
Tel - +55.11.3266.6253
Mob- +55.11.8181.1464
<mailto:vanda@uol.com.br> vanda@uol.com.br
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 5:21 PM To: ALAC Working List Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement
The following note and attachment has been submitted to the GNSO STI Review Team on behalf of Olivier and me and the Names Issues Task Force.
To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti@icann.org>
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Subject: At-Large Position Statement
Please find attached the At-Large Position Statement.
Note that:
- Items 10 an 18 on notices raise the critical issue of language which
has not as yet been discussed in the STI Review Team.
- Item 17 on the URS response period proposes new URS timing and
process which should substantially benefit both TM holders and registrants.
- Item 22 on URS periodic review introduces a new and problematic issue
that has previously not been discussed by the STI Review Team.
- Item 24 raises the issue of Clearinghouse fees.
Alan
_________________________________________________________________ ¿Querés cuidar el medio ambiente? Ingresá a MSN Verde y seguí nuestros tips verdes http://verde.latam.msn.com/
Thank you. Alan At 09/11/2009 09:18 AM, carlos aguirre wrote:
Olivier & Alan: Great Job !
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 <http://www.sitioderecho.com.ar/>www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org
From: vanda@uol.com.br To: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:53:04 -0200 CC: ocl@gih.com Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement
Alan , Olivier
Excelente doc. From my point of view it addresses the concerns we had. It still not clear for me, but it is not our business, is how the claringhouse can be a sustainable operation.
Thanks for the work
Best
cid:image002.jpg@01C93E96.B7BF8BD0
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Alameda Santos 1470 #1407
Tel - +55.11.3266.6253
Mob- +55.11.8181.1464
<mailto:vanda@uol.com.br> vanda@uol.com.br
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 5:21 PM To: ALAC Working List Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement
The following note and attachment has been submitted to the GNSO STI Review Team on behalf of Olivier and me and the Names Issues Task Force.
To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti@icann.org>
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Subject: At-Large Position Statement
Please find attached the At-Large Position Statement.
Note that:
- Items 10 an 18 on notices raise the critical issue of language which
has not as yet been discussed in the STI Review Team.
- Item 17 on the URS response period proposes new URS timing and
process which should substantially benefit both TM holders and registrants.
- Item 22 on URS periodic review introduces a new and problematic issue
that has previously not been discussed by the STI Review Team.
- Item 24 raises the issue of Clearinghouse fees.
Alan
---------- ¿Te llegan demasiados emails? <http://mail.live.com/>Organizate con Hotmail. ¡Creá carpetas para todos tus correos!
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
carlos aguirre -
Evan Leibovitch -
Vanda UOL -
Wolf Ludwig