Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Summary of Trademark Clearing House Meeting [Remote Streaming]
Dear Wolf, Yes the points you and Rudi raised are critical when we will be reviewing Version 2 although there is nothing to prevent us from analysing Version 1 as it currently stands. The cost factor of course we can assess once the proposed design is in place etc so we can see what is reasonable and what's not. It will be good to see the basis of what is used for cost modelling without a doubt. Cheers, Sala On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net>wrote:
Dear Sala and all,
thanks for the interesting points you raised. And we touched this issue during our monthly call tonight. A highly relevant question is - what Rudi mentioned below - "Who pays for the services that are of benefit to the Trademark owners ?" Is it - at the end of the chain - the end user again who has to refund all the related investments? This should be a key question for our community.
Kind regards, Wolf
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:28:
Dear All,
In any regulatory model where infrastructure is being set up, in this case a specific type of information infrastructure, there are serious costs associated with it, whether they are CAPEX or OPEX costs. For those putting in the investment, there is an expected return on investment whether this is over a period of time or not. The complexity in what is being set up lies in the fact that a data bank does not exist yet, in other worlds when the queries are pumped into the system than they will form a baseline where others can eventually draw or issue new searches etc. It is another thing to make it interoperable where these queries can be run across multiple registries. There are many other factors and variables to consider, for instance, updating caches or lists and when that is going to be done.
They are at the moment brainstorming on the general architecture that it should take from a technical operational standpoint to something that is workable and efficient and that can be used. As you can imagine they have to do this carefully because of the obligations that come with it. My view is that we wait for them to work on their Version 2 which will be significantly different from Version 1 as there were many things discussed in the meeting as it was more like a directly affected stakeholder consultation if you wish. Yes, we are stakeholders too and there is nothing to stop us from joining the mailing list or reading the wiki etc but at this stage, I would say we wait and analyse the Version 2 which will be posted for comments and where other constituencies and advisory committees will be asked for their perspective.
Of course this is not to stop us from working on a few things now.
Kind Regards, Sala
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick@isoc.be wrote:
Dear all,
When reading through the Trademark Clearinghouse: Preliminary Cost Model (version 1 June 2012) I was surprised reading the following paragraph :
Services to Registries Initial implementation and fee discussions indicate that registries will pay for access to the Clearinghouse database. Further details are still being worked out; however, initial estimates based on currently available information indicate that a set-up fee of USD 7,000 - 10,000 will be due per TLD registry. The set-up fee would cover Sunrise and Trademark Claims processes as established by ICANN, as well as assistance in integration and testing. Additional fees will be due in other circumstances such as participation in other programs or ancillary services.
Does this mean the registries do have to pay for the services that are of benefit to the Trademark owners ? In the previous paragraph is mentioned :
Services to Rightsholders The primary services offered to rights holders are: (1) authentication as a trademark and (2) validation of proof-of-use. The first establishes that rights information meets the criteria for Clearinghouse inclusion and the second establishes that a Clearinghouse record meets the standard for Sunrise eligibility as described by ICANN, i.e., demonstration of use of the trademark. A bundled fee is expected where these services are performed together. Proof of use validation would also be available at an individual price if such is requested subsequent to the original submission of rights data for authentication. The bundled fee or price for these initial services (authentication and validation) is expected to be less than USD 150 per submission. Annual renewal fees for Clearinghouse records are expected at a percentage of the initial price. The low fee requires that submissions be inexpensive and straightforward to process. Complex circumstances and additional services will add to the cost. There may be additional charges if further scrutiny is required (such as a re-submission due to errors in the original submission or an appeal to the initial Clearinghouse determination). Also, non-electronic submissions might be available at a higher rate in order to cover handling costs.
As such I understand the Trademark owners just pay a very small fee to get their name been protected while the majority of the cost is covered by the registry, which in the end means the registrant will pay for it !!
What's ALAC's position in this ?
Rudi Vansnick
Op 21-aug-2012, om 17:56 heeft Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro het volgende geschreven:
Dear All,
There was a 2 day meeting which concluded today on Trademark Clearing Hose Draft Implementation Model that was tabled in Prague. There was much discussion stemming from the 2 day meeting that was productive. The recordings are available and hopefully will be posted on http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-
For now here is my take on what occurred.
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 <Trademark Clearing House Draft Implementation Model.docx>_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 _______________________________________________ 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...)
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Thank you Sala for this feedback and personal inputs. The financial issue raised by Rudi seems important and your arguments are understandable. We might have to check with Version 2 if the initial fee will decrease overtime ... Warmest greetings to all of you Fatimata 2012/8/21 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>
Dear Wolf,
Yes the points you and Rudi raised are critical when we will be reviewing Version 2 although there is nothing to prevent us from analysing Version 1 as it currently stands. The cost factor of course we can assess once the proposed design is in place etc so we can see what is reasonable and what's not.
It will be good to see the basis of what is used for cost modelling without a doubt.
Cheers, Sala
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net
wrote:
Dear Sala and all,
thanks for the interesting points you raised. And we touched this issue during our monthly call tonight. A highly relevant question is - what Rudi mentioned below - "Who pays for the services that are of benefit to the Trademark owners ?" Is it - at the end of the chain - the end user again who has to refund all the related investments? This should be a key question for our community.
Kind regards, Wolf
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:28:
Dear All,
In any regulatory model where infrastructure is being set up, in this case a specific type of information infrastructure, there are serious costs associated with it, whether they are CAPEX or OPEX costs. For those putting in the investment, there is an expected return on investment whether this is over a period of time or not. The complexity in what is being set up lies in the fact that a data bank does not exist yet, in other worlds when the queries are pumped into the system than they will form a baseline where others can eventually draw or issue new searches etc. It is another thing to make it interoperable where these queries can be run across multiple registries. There are many other factors and variables to consider, for instance, updating caches or lists and when that is going to be done.
They are at the moment brainstorming on the general architecture that it should take from a technical operational standpoint to something that is workable and efficient and that can be used. As you can imagine they have to do this carefully because of the obligations that come with it. My view is that we wait for them to work on their Version 2 which will be significantly different from Version 1 as there were many things discussed in the meeting as it was more like a directly affected stakeholder consultation if you wish. Yes, we are stakeholders too and there is nothing to stop us from joining the mailing list or reading the wiki etc but at this stage, I would say we wait and analyse the Version 2 which will be posted for comments and where other constituencies and advisory committees will be asked for their perspective.
Of course this is not to stop us from working on a few things now.
Kind Regards, Sala
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick@isoc.be wrote:
Dear all,
When reading through the Trademark Clearinghouse: Preliminary Cost Model (version 1 June 2012) I was surprised reading the following paragraph :
Services to Registries Initial implementation and fee discussions indicate that registries will pay for access to the Clearinghouse database. Further details are still being worked out; however, initial estimates based on currently available information indicate that a set-up fee of USD 7,000 - 10,000 will be due per TLD registry. The set-up fee would cover Sunrise and Trademark Claims processes as established by ICANN, as well as assistance in integration and testing. Additional fees will be due in other circumstances such as participation in other programs or ancillary services.
Does this mean the registries do have to pay for the services that are of benefit to the Trademark owners ? In the previous paragraph is mentioned :
Services to Rightsholders The primary services offered to rights holders are: (1) authentication as a trademark and (2) validation of proof-of-use. The first establishes that rights information meets the criteria for Clearinghouse inclusion and the second establishes that a Clearinghouse record meets the standard for Sunrise eligibility as described by ICANN, i.e., demonstration of use of the trademark. A bundled fee is expected where these services are performed together. Proof of use validation would also be available at an individual price if such is requested subsequent to the original submission of rights data for authentication. The bundled fee or price for these initial services (authentication and validation) is expected to be less than USD 150 per submission. Annual renewal fees for Clearinghouse records are expected at a percentage of the initial price. The low fee requires that submissions be inexpensive and straightforward to process. Complex circumstances and additional services will add to the cost. There may be additional charges if further scrutiny is required (such as a re-submission due to errors in the original submission or an appeal to the initial Clearinghouse determination). Also, non-electronic submissions might be available at a higher rate in order to cover handling costs.
As such I understand the Trademark owners just pay a very small fee to get their name been protected while the majority of the cost is covered by the registry, which in the end means the registrant will pay for it !!
What's ALAC's position in this ?
Rudi Vansnick
Op 21-aug-2012, om 17:56 heeft Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro het volgende geschreven:
Dear All,
There was a 2 day meeting which concluded today on Trademark Clearing Hose Draft Implementation Model that was tabled in Prague. There was much discussion stemming from the 2 day meeting that was productive. The recordings are available and hopefully will be posted on http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-
For now here is my take on what occurred.
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 <Trademark Clearing House Draft Implementation Model.docx>_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 _______________________________________________ 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:
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 _______________________________________________ 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)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29>
-- Fatimata Seye Sylla
participants (2)
-
Fatimata Seye Sylla -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro