November 2012 - APAC-Discuss

Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) early warnings on new gTLDs applications
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim 21 Nov '12

21 Nov '12

FYI: The GAC early warnings (objections to specific new gTLD applications) are now public at: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Warnings Best regards, Rinalia

1 0

Call for Volunteers: Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2 - Deadline 5 December
by ICANN At-Large Staff 20 Nov '12

20 Nov '12

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, please see below a note from ICANN staff regarding the current call for independent experts and Volunteer Team Members on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2. ** Dear Olivier, As you know, the Call to serve on the Affirmation of Commitments mandated review - Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2) - as independent expert or as Volunteer Team Member in representation of ICANN SO/ACs was published on 5 October 2012. Please refer to the announcement - http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05oct12-en.htm - and Call for Applicants - http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/call-for-volunteers-05oct12-e… - for full reference. Applicants should submit their information and set of documents (as listed in the Call for Applicants http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/call-for-volunteers-05oct12-e…) to rtcandidatures(a)icann.org<mailto:rtcandidatures@icann.org> by Wednesday, 5 December 2012 -23:59 UTC. Given that the deadline is less than a month away, we would be grateful if you could please remind your Community of the application window and encourage them to participate in this key effort. Please do not hesitate to contact us at olof.nordling(a)icann.org<mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org> andalice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org> should you have any questions or should you wish to set up a conference call to discuss this further. Thanks, Best regards Olof and Alice ** Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

WHOIS Board decision
by Holly Raiche 19 Nov '12

19 Nov '12

Hi Everyone The Board decision on WHois - not it is not being made public until 19 November. It is clear from the statement that the Board supported the SSAC approach - to start with a fresh look at the Whois policy. Clearly, there will be a PDP, as well as outcomes from the IETF working group on WEIRDS. It will all take time, but also note their commitment to compliance with current requirements as well. Happy reading Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: 20 November 2012 1:16:09 PM AEDT > To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: [ALAC] Board WHOIS resolution and Board Briefing Document > > (Thanks to Bruce Tonkin) > > > WHOIS Policy Review Team Report > > Whereas, the WHOIS Policy Review Team Report was submitted to the Board on 11 May 2012 and was the subject of extensive public comment and community discussion; > > Whereas, the Review Team's work has encouraged the Board and community to re-examine the fundamental purpose and objectives of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, has inspired renewed and new efforts to enforce current WHOIS policy and contractual conditions, and has served as a catalyst for launching a new approach to long-standing directory services challenges; > > Resolved (2012.11.08.01), the Board directs the CEO to launch a new effort to redefine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate (as detailed in the 1 November 2012 Board paper entitled, "Action Plan to Address WHOIS Policy Review Team Report Recommendations"-ICANN Board Submission Number 2012-11-08-01 [PDF, 266 KB]), and hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process; > > Resolved (2012.11.08.02), the Board directs the CEO to continue to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to the collection, access and accuracy of gTLD registration data (referred to as gTLD WHOIS data), and increase efforts to communicate, conduct outreach on, and ensure compliance with existing policy and conditions relating to WHOIS (as detailed in the 1 November 2012 Summary of the Board Action entitled, "WHOIS Policy Review Team Report Recommendations"). > > Resolved (2012.11.08.03), pursuant to Article III, Section 5.4 of the Bylaws, the Board directs that the contents of this resolution and rationale shall not be made publicly available until 19 November 2012. > > > Rationale for Resolutions 2012.11.08.01 - 2012.11.08.02 > > The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) between ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce commits ICANN to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS (subject to applicable laws), which "requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information." The AoC obligates ICANN to organize no less frequently than every three years a community review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust. The AoC further commits ICANN's Board to publish for public comment the report submitted by the Review Team, and to take action on the report within six months of its submission. > > The Team's volunteer members were appointed by ICANN's CEO and the GAC Chair, per the AoC requirements, and reflected the broad Internet community's interests in WHOIS policy. For 18 months, the Team conducted fact-finding, including meetings with ICANN's relevant Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, members of the broader Internet community, and other interested parties, and issued a draft report for public comment before submitting its Final Report to the Board on 11 May 2012. The Report was posted for two months of public comment and the Board requested input from ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Community discussion and input on the Report continued through the ICANN Toronto meeting in October 2012. > > The GAC and ALAC endorsed the WHOIS review report, SSAC provided a response in SAC055 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-055-en.pdf), and the GNSO provided a response by constituency (http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-icann-board-07nov12-en.… [PDF, 377 KB]). > > There is general agreement on the objective of strengthening the enforcement of existing consensus policies and contracts and the WHOIS Review Team Report provides many relevant recommendations to that effect. > > However, both the WHOIS Review Team Report and the SSAC comments highlighted the limits of the current framework for gTLD directory services and the need to move beyond the present contractual provisions. The WHOIS Review Team for instance clearly stated that "the current system is broken and needs to be repaired." Likewise, the SSAC report stated that "the foundational problem facing all 'WHOIS' discussions is understanding the purpose of domain name registration data", that "there is a critical need for a policy defining the purpose of collecting and maintaining registration data" and suggested that "the formation of a properly authorized committee to drive solutions to these questions first, and to then derive a universal policy from the answers, is the appropriate sequence of steps to address the WHOIS Review Team's report ." > > Indeed, the WHOIS protocol is over 25 years old (the current version is documented in RFC3912 dated September 2004, and the original version is documented in RFC812 dated March 1982). Furthermore, ICANN's requirements for domain name registration data collection, access and accuracy for gTLD registries and registrars are largely unchanged after more than 12 years of GNSO task forces, working groups, workshops, surveys and studies. Concerns of access, accuracy, privacy, obsolescence of protocols in an evolving name space, and costs to change remain unresolved. > > In this context, taking into account these inputs and community concerns, the Board has determined that a broad and responsive action is required and has decided to implement a two-pronged approach. Accordingly, the Board is simultaneously: > > 1.Directing the President and CEO to continue to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions as well as to increase efforts to communicate, conduct outreach on, and ensure compliance with such existing policy and conditions. > > 2.Directing the President and CEO to launch a new effort focused on the purpose and provision of gTLD directory services, to serve as the foundation of an upcoming Board-initiated gNSO PDP. The outcomes of this work should act as guidance to the Issue Report that will be presented as part of the GNSO's policy development work; as a result, the Issues Report is not expected to be produced until such time as the President and CEO determines that his work has progressed to a point that it can serve as a basis of work within the PDP. > > On both aspects, additional information is contained in the document, "Action Plan to Address WHOIS Policy Review Team Report Recommendations"-ICANN Board Submission Number 2012-11-08-01" (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12… [PDF, 266 KB]). > > As part of the work of the President and CEO to ensure continued compliance with existing policy and conditions, the President and CEO has moved the Compliance Department to report directly to the President and CEO (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14sep12-en.htm), and the Board granted financial authorization to establish a Contractual Compliance Audit Program through an independent Service Provider (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-03oct12-en.htm#1…) > > Furthermore, appropriate liaison will be established with the ongoing work undertaken in the IETF WG on the Web Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (WEIRDS) Protocol to ensure coherence. > > The Board strongly feels that taking this two-pronged approach is essential to fulfill ICANN's responsibility to act in the global public interest. > > The initiation of a focused work on Whois is expected to have an impact on financial resources as the research and work progresses. If the resource needs are greater than the amounts currently budgeted to perform work on Whois-related issues, the President and CEO will bring any additional resource needs to the Board Finance Committee for consideration, in line with existing contingency fund request practices. > > This action is not expected to have an immediate impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS, though the outcomes of this work may result in positive impacts. > > This is an Organizational Administrative Function of the Board for which the Board received public comment, at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-rt-final-report-11may12-e…. > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

APRALO news
by Holly Raiche 19 Nov '12

19 Nov '12

Hi Everyone Each month, the RALO Chair is to submit a report on the activities in their region. It's a bit late, but many of you will also have been tied up with Baku. So please, for the October newsletter, I want to include - new APRALO members for October - confirmation of new APRALO officers at Toronto - highlights for APRALO during Toronto. A lot of you were there, but I don't see reports. I want to list who among us was there, and highlights of the issues that concern us. Edmon and Rinalia particularly, a couple of sentences on IDNs in Toronto - thanks - other APRALO activities - Sala - how did your capacity building exercise go? we should cover that in the news letter What I want to do next is what Garth has done in NARALO: List the various issues that are ALAC's as well as listing other issues specific to this region - and assign people to issues. (e.g., for the RAA, Cintra has already put her hand up along with mine,, and Edmon's and Rinalia's are against IDNs) But first - any more reports from Toronto - and any other reports for the region Thanks Holly

2 1

Baku outcomes
by Holly Raiche 16 Nov '12

16 Nov '12

HI Everyone With Baku over, the agenda for the next APRALO meeting includes a look back at Baku. We don't have a lot of time in that teleconference, so it would be really helpful if those of you who attended could write brief notes on what happened - what was good (and not so good), what issues came up that we should be aware of and what lessons are there to be learned - particularly for the Beijing meeting and APRALO showcase. Matt - could you please set up a workspace for people to put their notes in please and circulate the link Thanks everyone for taking the time. Holly

3 2

Re: [APAC-Discuss] Baku outcomes- APRALO Agenda Page including Baku reports space link
by Silvia Vivanco 15 Nov '12

15 Nov '12

Dear Holly et all, The APRALO Agenda is posted, including a link on it to post the BAKU Reports (ítem 6). https://community.icann.org/display/APRALO/APRALO+2012.11.27+Monthly+Teleco… I will update the PCs section. Thank you Kind regards, Silvia Silvia Vivanco Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (202) 570-7119 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Cell/Mobile: +1 (202) 735-7011 -----Original Message----- From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:46 AM To: apralo Discuss; ICANN At-Large Staff Cc: Matt Ashtiani Subject: Baku outcomes HI Everyone With Baku over, the agenda for the next APRALO meeting includes a look back at Baku. We don't have a lot of time in that teleconference, so it would be really helpful if those of you who attended could write brief notes on what happened - what was good (and not so good), what issues came up that we should be aware of and what lessons are there to be learned - particularly for the Beijing meeting and APRALO showcase. Matt - could you please set up a workspace for people to put their notes in please and circulate the link Thanks everyone for taking the time. Holly

1 0

ALAC Response to IDN Variant TLD Program - Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim 14 Nov '12

14 Nov '12

Dear members of the ALAC, At-Large and IDN WG, * Re: Label Generation Rules (LGR) Process document (Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels)* A draft response to the document specified above has been prepared and posted at the following At-Large Policy Development wiki page for your review and comments: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=36212771 PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU COMMENT BY END OF MONDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2012! The ALAC will vote on the response immediately after the 19th so that the IDN Program Team can take it into consideration as they are finalizing the document based on comments received at the end of the month. Note: Though the comment period is over, we are able to channel this response directly to the VIP Program Team based on an agreement in Toronto. Thank you. Best regards, Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:42 AM Subject: ICANN News Alert -- IDN Variant TLD Program - Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels To: rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-24sep12-en.htm ____________________________________ IDN Variant TLD Program – Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels 24 September 2012 Comment Period Opens on 24 September 2012 Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): The Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant TLD Program deals with the variant form of top-level domain (TLD) names in different scripts. To enable IDN Variant TLDs in the root, it is necessary to establish the Label Generation Rules (LGR) for the DNS Root Zone. The Label Generation Rules Process is a way to develop and maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in respect of IDNA labels. The process must be in place to enable the delegation and management of IDN Variant TLDs. The Label Generation Rules (LGR) Process project team, consisting of global volunteers with expert consultants and ICANN staff, has produced the first public draft of the LGR Process document. The team now seeks community input on the proposed process and the principles that support it. The Label Generation Rules (LGR) Process document will be discussed at a public session at the ICANN meeting in Toronto in October 2012. The session schedule will be available at ICANN Toronto Meeting Website ( http://toronto45.icann.org/full-schedule). Comments received in this Public Comment period as well as community feedback during the Toronto meeting will be incorporated into the final draft and published for second round of Public Comment in November 2012. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/lgr-procedure-24sep12-en.htm ____________________________________ This message was sent to rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Manage Your Subscription: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=20657474&l=6333&s=R4TD&m=89…

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC] Meeting in LA to discuss TM protection issues
by Holly Raiche 13 Nov '12

13 Nov '12

Hi Everyone Sala has already forwarded this email to you. What Alan is seeking is support from the Regional ALSs for this position. I have read this through, including the brief (and helpful) explanation and believe that we should support this position - giving Alan (and Evan) support for the follow up meeting(s) they will attend on our behalf. Some of the points are mainly about trade mark (TM) issues - relevant to Internet users in that domain names should relate to the actual person/organisation registrant (i.e., not wilfully or otherwise mislead). Other issues are more familiar to some of you and relate to the long running issues of the Whois database and compliance with the RAA. Happy reading. And if you have any further comments or questions, contact Alan directly - I'm sure Alan will help you through. (Our next APRALO meeting won't be until the end of Nov. so we won't have time to discuss this in detail) Happy reading - and Alan and Evan, thanks for the explanation. I personally support this - and note that a lot of this is about issues that have long been on our agenda and need our continued support Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: 13 November 2012 5:42:19 AM AEDT > To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: [ALAC] Meeting in LA to discuss TM protection issues > > NOTE: THIS MESSAGE IS LONG, BUT WE ONLY HAVE A FEW DAYS IN WHICH TO ACT. > > In Toronto, The IPC and BC presented a list of suggested rights > protection mechanisms to ICANN. The document can be found at > http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-pritz-17oct12-en.pdf. > > The substance was the following 8 points. > > 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. > 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; > ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. > 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its > usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. > 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level > registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings > previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) > across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with > appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. > 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. > 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an > amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. > 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. > 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously > found to have been abusively registered or used. > > Note that these statements are rather vague in some cases, but no > further details have been provided. > > A meeting to iron out differences and clarify issues on the TMCH was > held in Brussels about 2 weeks ago. The outcomes can be found at > http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable-trademark-clea…. > > There will be a follow-up meeting in Los Angeles to discuss, (perhaps > among other things), the BBC/IPC proposals. My understanding is that > I an likely Evan will be invited to participate (remotely since no > travel funding is being provided). > > Following discussions with Evan and Olivier as well as Kathy Kleiman > and Robin gross from NCUC, here is what I believe the current > positions to be supported by ALAC to be. > > IF YOU FEEL THAT ANY OF THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED, PLEASE SPEAK UP QUICKLY. > > ========================== > Our overall position is that we would prefer to not make any > substantive changes at this late date, and particularly not ones that > can reasonably be considered policy. This is said with the full > understanding that throughout the new gTLD process, parts of the > community have often considered things that they want changed to be > "implementation", and things that they do not want changed to be > "policy". In fact, the entire STI discussion > (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf) > was deemed to be one of implementation and investigating the "policy > implications" of the TMCH and URS. Note that some of the proposals > are clearly not "Policy" from a GNSO point of view. > > That being said, it is possible that change will occur based on the > issues raised by the BC/IPC, and the ALAC needs to consider the > specific issues. > > 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. > > ALAC has no strong feelings on this.My understanding is that it may > already have been resolved during the Brussels meeting. > > > 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; > ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. > > A TM Claim sends a notice to a potential registrant that the name > they are registering possible overlaps with a TM's term. It does not > stop the registration, but asks that the registrant confirm that > their use is legitimate and does not violate TM rights (since TM > rights are specific to the type of service/product offered and a > geographic local, this is quite possible). The STI report said that > Post-Launch Claims are not required. The AG says that at a minimum, > Claims must be used for 60 days following general registration > availability. Since neither of these terms are fully defined, it is > not clear if these two requirements conflict or are both > simultaneously possible. One of the outcomes of the Brussels meeting > is to firm up some definitions, so perhaps this will become clear. > That notwithstanding, the ALAC issued a minority report to the STI > saying that with some specific reservations, we supported ongoing TM > Claims. So we are basically supportive of the request. > > > 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its > usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. > > This seems like a motherhood statement and as such ALAC has not > problem with it. The only reservation is to the exact meaning of > "increase its usefulness". If this is implying substantive change, we > do need to consider it on its merits. That being said, the ALAC in > its minority statement had supported the concept of allowing a URS > claimant who was successful to have the domain transferred to them > similar to what is allowed following a successful UDRP. > > The concept of ICANN underwriting the URS for some period of time was > originally suggested by me, so I support it in concept. The ALAC has > never discussed it. At this point, it looks like there will be one or > more URS providers who can do it for the required fee without subsidization. > > > 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level > registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings > previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) > across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with > appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. > > The ALAC in its minority statement did support allowing strings to be > registered in the TMCH which included its TM term in conjunction with > terms related to its service/products (ie Ford-Trucks). So we *might* > be supportive of that part of the request. However, the term > "prevent" is onerous, even with "appropriate safeguards". > > We would suggest a position that this is a substantive change and > should not be done at this time, but rather considered as in a future > policy process. Furthermore, it is something whose value will not be > significantly lower if it is somewhat delayed. > > > 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. > > The ALAC certainly supports this concept and our presumption has been > that this will be included in the next RAA. To the extent that this > BC/IPC request increases the pressue on ICANN to ensure that this > happens, we support it. > > > 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an > amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. > > This is already being discussed in the context of the new RAA. In > particular, registrars believe that they should not be at a > competitive disadvantage because some registrars stay on the old RAA > and thus have lower costs (such as those associated with > verification). From an ICANN point of view, there will certainly be > sufficient compliance issues associated with new gTLDs that having > all registrars who market them on the current RAA can only be viewed > as good. ALAC strongly supports this. > > > 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. > > It is unclear exactly what this one means. Certainly ALAC supports > any position that strengthens compliance enforcement. The reference > to "Standard applications" is unclear. It *may* mean that like > Community TLDs, standard (ie non-Community) TLDs should be required > to honour the use of the TLD described in the application (currently > there is no such requirement - they can apply for a TLD string for > one purpose and change that purpose completely on implementation). > > ALAC has generally advocated such a requirement, although it seems > like it is a bit late to impose it on applicants who have applied > under the current rules. > > > 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously > found to have been abusively registered or used. > > This is a possibly interesting new TM protection mechanism, and is a > probably a subset of the "TM along with related terms" statement that > we made in our minority report. Nevertheless, it is a substantive > change, and like item 4, should be the subject of a policy process > prior to implementation. > > Alan (and Evan) > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

6 8

Fwd: [ALAC] Meeting in LA to discuss TM protection issues
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 12 Nov '12

12 Nov '12

Dear All, This is in relation to the system being developed to look into the Trademark Protection issues in relation to new gTLDs. Kind Regards, Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7:42 AM Subject: [ALAC] Meeting in LA to discuss TM protection issues To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> NOTE: THIS MESSAGE IS LONG, BUT WE ONLY HAVE A FEW DAYS IN WHICH TO ACT. In Toronto, The IPC and BC presented a list of suggested rights protection mechanisms to ICANN. The document can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-pritz-17oct12-en.pdf . The substance was the following 8 points. 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. Note that these statements are rather vague in some cases, but no further details have been provided. A meeting to iron out differences and clarify issues on the TMCH was held in Brussels about 2 weeks ago. The outcomes can be found at http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable-trademark-clea… . There will be a follow-up meeting in Los Angeles to discuss, (perhaps among other things), the BBC/IPC proposals. My understanding is that I an likely Evan will be invited to participate (remotely since no travel funding is being provided). Following discussions with Evan and Olivier as well as Kathy Kleiman and Robin gross from NCUC, here is what I believe the current positions to be supported by ALAC to be. IF YOU FEEL THAT ANY OF THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED, PLEASE SPEAK UP QUICKLY. ========================== Our overall position is that we would prefer to not make any substantive changes at this late date, and particularly not ones that can reasonably be considered policy. This is said with the full understanding that throughout the new gTLD process, parts of the community have often considered things that they want changed to be "implementation", and things that they do not want changed to be "policy". In fact, the entire STI discussion (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf) was deemed to be one of implementation and investigating the "policy implications" of the TMCH and URS. Note that some of the proposals are clearly not "Policy" from a GNSO point of view. That being said, it is possible that change will occur based on the issues raised by the BC/IPC, and the ALAC needs to consider the specific issues. 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. ALAC has no strong feelings on this.My understanding is that it may already have been resolved during the Brussels meeting. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. A TM Claim sends a notice to a potential registrant that the name they are registering possible overlaps with a TM's term. It does not stop the registration, but asks that the registrant confirm that their use is legitimate and does not violate TM rights (since TM rights are specific to the type of service/product offered and a geographic local, this is quite possible). The STI report said that Post-Launch Claims are not required. The AG says that at a minimum, Claims must be used for 60 days following general registration availability. Since neither of these terms are fully defined, it is not clear if these two requirements conflict or are both simultaneously possible. One of the outcomes of the Brussels meeting is to firm up some definitions, so perhaps this will become clear. That notwithstanding, the ALAC issued a minority report to the STI saying that with some specific reservations, we supported ongoing TM Claims. So we are basically supportive of the request. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. This seems like a motherhood statement and as such ALAC has not problem with it. The only reservation is to the exact meaning of "increase its usefulness". If this is implying substantive change, we do need to consider it on its merits. That being said, the ALAC in its minority statement had supported the concept of allowing a URS claimant who was successful to have the domain transferred to them similar to what is allowed following a successful UDRP. The concept of ICANN underwriting the URS for some period of time was originally suggested by me, so I support it in concept. The ALAC has never discussed it. At this point, it looks like there will be one or more URS providers who can do it for the required fee without subsidization. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. The ALAC in its minority statement did support allowing strings to be registered in the TMCH which included its TM term in conjunction with terms related to its service/products (ie Ford-Trucks). So we *might* be supportive of that part of the request. However, the term "prevent" is onerous, even with "appropriate safeguards". We would suggest a position that this is a substantive change and should not be done at this time, but rather considered as in a future policy process. Furthermore, it is something whose value will not be significantly lower if it is somewhat delayed. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. The ALAC certainly supports this concept and our presumption has been that this will be included in the next RAA. To the extent that this BC/IPC request increases the pressue on ICANN to ensure that this happens, we support it. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. This is already being discussed in the context of the new RAA. In particular, registrars believe that they should not be at a competitive disadvantage because some registrars stay on the old RAA and thus have lower costs (such as those associated with verification). From an ICANN point of view, there will certainly be sufficient compliance issues associated with new gTLDs that having all registrars who market them on the current RAA can only be viewed as good. ALAC strongly supports this. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. It is unclear exactly what this one means. Certainly ALAC supports any position that strengthens compliance enforcement. The reference to "Standard applications" is unclear. It *may* mean that like Community TLDs, standard (ie non-Community) TLDs should be required to honour the use of the TLD described in the application (currently there is no such requirement - they can apply for a TLD string for one purpose and change that purpose completely on implementation). ALAC has generally advocated such a requirement, although it seems like it is a bit late to impose it on applicants who have applied under the current rules. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. This is a possibly interesting new TM protection mechanism, and is a probably a subset of the "TM along with related terms" statement that we made in our minority report. Nevertheless, it is a substantive change, and like item 4, should be the subject of a policy process prior to implementation. Alan (and Evan) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

ANNOUNCEMENT FROM NOMCOM: Apply Now for ICANN's Leadership Positions
by ICANN At-Large Staff 09 Nov '12

09 Nov '12

Dear All, Please see below the partial text of an announcement inviting Statements of Interest and candidate recommendations from the Internet community for key leadership positions to fulfill ICANN's technical and policy coordination role to be submitted to the ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom): ** 7 November 2012 ICANN's Nominating Committee (NomCom) invites Statements of Interest and candidate recommendations from the Internet community for key leadership positions to fulfill ICANN's technical and policy coordination role. Interested individuals are invited to submit a Statement of Interest to the Nominating Committee for the following positions: * Three members of the Board of Directors of ICANN * Three At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) representatives (one each from the Africa, Asia/Australia/Pacific Islands and Latin America/Caribbean Islands regions) * Two members of the Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * One member of the Council of the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)... Statements of Interest for the positions described above can be submitted through an on-line application form at (http://nomcom.icann.org/apply) or by contacting nomcom2013(a)icann.org<mailto:nomcom2013@icann.org>. More information regarding the NomCom can be found at http://nomcom.icann.org. Applications will be considered in confidence and should be received by 1 May 2013 for full consideration. Selections will be announced in early September 2013. Successful candidates will take up their positions following ICANN's Annual Meeting in November 2013. Candidate recommendations are encouraged and can be submitted through an on-line form at http://nomcom.icann.org/suggest, and questions or comments may also be submitted to nomcom2013(a)icann.org<mailto:nomcom2013@icann.org>. ** For the full announcement, please see: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-07nov12-en.htm Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0