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
> > 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
CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants 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
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
At 23/04/2013 07:17 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: 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