February 2012 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

BC Officer Elections 2012: Results
by Marilyn Cade 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

Thanks to the Voting Officer and Verifying Officer/GNSO Secretariat for concluding the counting and publication of the outcome of the election so promptly. Let me thank all BC members for voting. I realize it is a busy time, and we have asked you to multi task within the BC during a busy early 2012. I appreciate the support to my role as chair, but also to the full set of Officers. As members know, we operate as a team, and I look forward to the continuation of other officers, and welcome Elisa Cooper as the incoming CSG rep. Looking ahead to Costa Rica, we have much to focus on before then, and right now, we are discussing several vitally interesting and impactful topics ranging from improvements to the new gTLD program, where members were asked to submit a further response to email exchanges on the BC list; to thick WHOIS; to planning for the Costa Rica meeting, and our input for various other workshops that we expect the staff to announce before C.R., as well as distributing our updated input into the ICANN budget, It will be a busy and important year, and I count on the involvement and participation of all of our members, and on our continuing expansion of the BC's role, and its membership. Thank you. Marilyn CadeBC Chair

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today
by Baskin, James F (Jim) 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

Marilyn, This is a great start. There are likely a few more aspects that would need to be covered - like registration info changes without a registrant change - but this is going in the right direction. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Cade [marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 01:21 PM Eastern Standard Time To: John Berard; Bill Smith Cc: Lynn Goodendorf; owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org; Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today A centralized WHOIS database, operated by ICANN, and outsourced, could benefit business [and govt's and NGOs] tremendously. NO names go live until verified payment received -- no future kiting and tasting opportunities supported by registries, registrars, and resellers Standards for WHOIS Single cost for entry to registrant and single cost to anyone accessing ISO certified This is not a discussion on who gets access, or what is displayed -- but a discussion on benefits of standards, and a single validated database. In my view, high benefit to business users. And, registrants like companies, can more easily look for cybersquatted names. ________________________________ From: john(a)crediblecontext.com To: bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com; marilynscade(a)hotmail.com CC: lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com; owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:37:25 -0700 Bill, Here is the pertinent line from the final report: From a technical perspective, a thick Whois model provides a central repository for a given registry. Historically, centralized databases are operated under a single administrator that sets conventions and standards for submission and display, archival/restoration and security have proven easier to manage. Not so much a call but a possibility. The report notes that some comments, like that coming from the IPC, did call for a centralized database. Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> Date: Thu, February 16, 2012 8:30 am To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: Lynn Goodendorf <lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>>, "<owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>>" <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>>, Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> To be clear, I am not questioning the BC position. Rather, I was pointing out that the characterization of the WHOIS RT recommendation as a call for a centralized database was perhaps incorrect. On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:19 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote: I understand that the WG may have made a distinction. However, the BC has supported thick WHOIS. It is helpful to have the clarification from the independent experts on that subject. Marilyn Cade > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today > To: bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com><mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org><mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org><mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> > CC: bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org><mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > From: lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com><mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com> > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:15:31 +0000 > > > Yes Bill- our RT made a deliberate distinction between a centralized web interface rather than a database. > We believe this approach is feasible and would provide consumers with a single URL for whois lookups. > Lynn > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>><mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> > Sender: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org><mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:07:06 > To: Steve DelBianco<sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>><mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> > Cc: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>><mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today > > > A clarification. > > I don't think the WHOIS RT recommendations include "a call for centralized database of WHOIS data". If it does, it's an error. What we are recommending is that there be a centralized point of *access* to WHOIS data. > > The data could reside anywhere. > > If our report says otherwise, or projects that perception, please let us know. > > On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote: > > Resending this to BC List (since I was rejected when sending to BC-Private) > > From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)actonline.org<mailto:sdelbianco@actonline.org>><mailto:sdelbianco@actonline.org><mailto:sdelbianco@actonline.org>> > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500 > To: Zahid Jamil <zahid(a)dndrc.com<mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>><mailto:zahid@dndrc.com><mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>>, John Berard <john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> > Cc: <bc-private(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-private@icann.org>><mailto:bc-private@icann.org><mailto:bc-private@icann.org>> > Subject: Council call today > > John & Zahid — just a follow-up on last week's member call, where we discussed the motions you have today in Council. > > Motion to start a PDP on Thick WHOIS: > > This one is complicated. > > BC wants accessible and accurate WHOIS, and thick WHOIS is part of the solution. But another part of the solution is amending the RAA to require verification of WHOIS data. And the WHOIS review Team draft report includes many recommendations on WHOIS, including a call for centralized database of WHOIS data. > > We also understand that registrars are not willing to share their WHOIS data with a thick .com whois or a a central database — unless ICANN adopts a new "consensus policy" requiring data sharing. And we know that it takes a PDP to create such a new consensus policy. > > However, we don't want to do anything that removes pressure on the current process to amend the RAA. And we are concerned that launching a new PDP could create an excuse for the RAA negotiators to avoid making any changes on WHOIS. > > John Berard was going to ask Stephane about deferring his PDP motion until after the RAA amendments are done. > > If John's outreach effort wasn't successful, I think the BC members would want you to ask for a deferral of the PDP motion, for reasons stated above. > > > Motion for implementation of IRTP Recommendation 8: > Support. The BC had several members on the IRTP-B working group, and we support implementation of the working group's recommendation. > > > Motion to send letter to Board asking to allow single-letter IDN gTLDs: > Support. The BC supports the expansion of gTLDs to IDN users, and wants TLDs to be able to use a single-character IDN if that's most appropriate for the linguistic community being served. > > > Hope that's helpful. Let me know if there's any other info I can provide for today's call. > > -- > Steve DelBianco > Vice chair for policy coordination > > >

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today
by john＠crediblecontext.com 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

2 1

FW: Council call today
by Steve DelBianco 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

Resending this to BC List (since I was rejected when sending to BC-Private) From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)actonline.org<mailto:sdelbianco@actonline.org>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid(a)dndrc.com<mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>>, John Berard <john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: <bc-private(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-private@icann.org>> Subject: Council call today John & Zahid — just a follow-up on last week's member call, where we discussed the motions you have today in Council. Motion to start a PDP on Thick WHOIS: This one is complicated. BC wants accessible and accurate WHOIS, and thick WHOIS is part of the solution. But another part of the solution is amending the RAA to require verification of WHOIS data. And the WHOIS review Team draft report includes many recommendations on WHOIS, including a call for centralized database of WHOIS data. We also understand that registrars are not willing to share their WHOIS data with a thick .com whois or a a central database — unless ICANN adopts a new "consensus policy" requiring data sharing. And we know that it takes a PDP to create such a new consensus policy. However, we don't want to do anything that removes pressure on the current process to amend the RAA. And we are concerned that launching a new PDP could create an excuse for the RAA negotiators to avoid making any changes on WHOIS. John Berard was going to ask Stephane about deferring his PDP motion until after the RAA amendments are done. If John's outreach effort wasn't successful, I think the BC members would want you to ask for a deferral of the PDP motion, for reasons stated above. Motion for implementation of IRTP Recommendation 8: Support. The BC had several members on the IRTP-B working group, and we support implementation of the working group's recommendation. Motion to send letter to Board asking to allow single-letter IDN gTLDs: Support. The BC supports the expansion of gTLDs to IDN users, and wants TLDs to be able to use a single-character IDN if that's most appropriate for the linguistic community being served. Hope that's helpful. Let me know if there's any other info I can provide for today's call. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination

4 6

LAST CALL before posting for public comment: Draft Advice on definitions and metrics for Consumer Trust, Choice, and Compeition
by Steve DelBianco 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

As I've mentioned on recent BC member calls, John Berard and I are on a Working Group looking at definitions and metrics for Consumer Trust, Choice, and Competition in the gTLD expansion. I've just circulated the 6th draft of "Advice" on the definitions and measures. (attached) 21-Feb is our last call before ICANN posts this draft advice for community review and comment. It will also be widely discussed in Costa Rica. So please send your edit suggestions to John and I before this weekend. You'll see changes to Consumer Choice measures, plus a row I added for IDN and non-English choices at Registrars — not just at Registries. We made multiple changes to measures for Competition, including the controversial step of suggesting targets for "defensive registrations" and "new entrants". Let's consider these carefully… And I added appendix B to show the note from ICANN legal department on collecting prices. Below that note, I added this: Note: While this legal concern is appreciated, the Working Group notes that none of the measures suggested in this draft advice document would require ICANN to issue any recommendations for how registrars and registries price their domain names. Regards, Steve -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

Important announcement -- Defensive Registrations
by Marilyn Cade 13 Feb '12

13 Feb '12

Dear Members This is a reminder about the announcement regarding the defensive registration 'issue'. As several members have contacted me about this, we will want to have a discussion with members who face these issues and have first hand experiences and concerns. I will work with Steve DelBianco and other members of the ExComm on a schedule and approach, which might be a mini online survey to gather information from members. Concerns about defensive registrations -- their burdens, and challenges -- have remained an ongoing concern by members, and this is an opportunity to understand the range of those concerns within our own membership. We of course recognize that individual companies will probably want to participate directly in the comment process. Marilyn CadeBC Chair Forum Announcement:Comment Period Opens onDate:6 February 2012Categories/Tags:Top-Level DomainsPurpose (Brief):The New gTLD Program features carefully crafted, new protections for trademark owners and consumers. When considering applications for new top-level names, the process is designed to protect these important interests through independent objection and dispute resolution processes (and other processes). However, as the time of the opening of the new gTLD application window drew near, parties stated their perception that they will need to submit "defensive" gTLD applications as a means to protect their trademarks. ICANN is seeking public comment on the sources of this perception and how it can be addressed.Public Comment Box Link:http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/newgtlds-defensive-applications…

1 0

POSTED: Business Constituency supports staff proposal for IRTP-B Recc 9, Part 2
by Steve DelBianco 13 Feb '12

13 Feb '12

Per the notice Phil Corwin and I sent last week, the BC posted this comment today, in support of staff recommendations on IRTP-B, Recc 9. From: Steve DelBianco Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:19:02 -0500 To: <irtp-b-rec9-part2(a)icann.org<mailto:irtp-b-rec9-part2@icann.org>> Subject: Business Constituency supports staff proposal for IRTP-B Recc 9, Part 2 The ICANN Business Constituency (BC) supports the staff proposal for implementation of IRTP-B, Recommendation 9, Part 2. Several BC members were very involved in the IRTP-B working group, and the BC endorsed the Working Group's May-2011 Report. As explained by staff, the proposed modifications to the Working Group's Report are: * Registrar may only impose a lock that would prohibit transfer of the domain name if it includes in its registration agreement the terms and conditions for imposing such lock and obtains express consent from the Registered Name Holder: and * Registrar must remove the "Registrar Lock" status within 5 calendar days of the Registered Name Holder's initial request, if the Registrar does not provide facilities for the Registered Name Holder to remove the "Registrar Lock" status In comparing the staff proposal to the Working Group's May-2011 report, we determined that proposed changes were consistent with the language and/or intent of the Working Group Report. The BC therefore supports the staff proposal. Phil Corwin served as Rapporteur for this comment. Submitted by: Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

FW: Article --" MegaBust's MegaQuestions Cloud the Net's Future"
by Phil Corwin 13 Feb '12

13 Feb '12

I have just posted an article discussing the legal and policy implications of the Megaupload prosecution at http://www.circleid.com/posts/megabusts_megaquestions_cloud_the_nets_future/ . The article discusses such matters as: * Where the dividing line now stands between civil and criminal copyright enforcement. * The rights (or lack thereof) of cyberlocker/cloud service users when their service provider is shut down by law enforcement. * The potential impact of the prosecution on cyberlockers and other cloud services, particularly those with U.S. legal nexus. * The likelihood of similar prosecutions being brought in the future. * What the prosecution means for legislation targeting "rogue foreign websites". * The clash between the "war on piracy" and the evolution of the Internet and general purpose computing. I hope you find the article to shed some reasonable light on these important issues, and would certainly appreciate any feedback. Because some formatting of the piece was lost in posting (and its concluding sentence omitted!) I have attached a read-only version as well. Thanks and best regards. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4807 - Release Date: 02/13/12

1 0

FW: WIPO Selected as Exclusive Provider of Dispute Services For Objections To New TLDs At ICANN
by Phil Corwin 13 Feb '12

13 Feb '12

FYI-WIPO has been appointed as the sole provider for adjudicating objections to new gTLDs (at the top level) by ICANN. An article on the matter and the relevant page from the WIPO website are below. http://www.ip-watch.org/?p=19503&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campa… WIPO Offers Dispute Services For Objections To New TLDs At ICANN By William New, Intellectual Property Watch on 13/02/2012 @ 2:00 pm The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has embarked on a programme of allowing new generic top-level domains on the internet (like .com), an initiative that has worried trademark holders and international organisations. Now the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center is offering services for trademark holders who wish to challenge proposals for new gTLDs later this year. WIPO "has been appointed by ICANN as the exclusive provider of dispute resolution services for trademark based 'pre-delegation' Legal Rights Objections under ICANN's New gTLD Program," it says in its webpage on the services<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/> [1]. This mechanism forms part of the Trademark Rights Protection Mechanisms for New gTLDs<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/rpm/> [2], accompanying the ICANN initiative. Applications for new gTLDs are due at ICANN by 12 April, and will be made public soon after by ICANN, which will announce the objection filing period, expected to about seven months, according to WIPO. Related Articles: * EU's Kroes Not Amused By ICANN Decision On New TLDs<http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/06/22/eus-kroes-not-amused-by-icann-decision-o…> [3] * WIPO Goes To Bat For Trademark Owners At ICANN<http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/05/16/wipo-goes-to-bat-for-trademark-owners-at…> [4] * WIPO Takes A Shot At ICANN's Domain Dispute Reform<http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/07/19/wipo-takes-a-shot-at-icanns-domain-dispu…> [5] Categories: Enforcement,English,Information and Communications Technology/ Broadcasting,IP Live,IP Policies,Language,Themes,Trademarks/Geographical Indications/Domains,Venues,WIPO ________________________________ Article printed from Intellectual Property Watch: http://www.ip-watch.org URL to article: http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/02/13/wipo-offers-dispute-services-for-objecti… URLs in this post: [1] webpage on the services: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/ [2] Trademark Rights Protection Mechanisms for New gTLDs: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/rpm/ [3] EU's Kroes Not Amused By ICANN Decision On New TLDs: http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/06/22/eus-kroes-not-amused-by-icann-decision-o… [4] WIPO Goes To Bat For Trademark Owners At ICANN: http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/05/16/wipo-goes-to-bat-for-trademark-owners-at… [5] WIPO Takes A Shot At ICANN's Domain Dispute Reform: http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/07/19/wipo-takes-a-shot-at-icanns-domain-dispu… http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/ Legal Rights Objections under ICANN's New gTLD Program Legal Rights Objections Toolkit * ICANN Applicant Guidebook, Module 3, Objection Procedures <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/objection-procedures-clean-19sep11…> * ICANN New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/new-gtld-drp-clean-19sep11-en.pdf> * WIPO Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/wipo-rules-clean-19sep11-en.pdf> * WIPO Schedule of Fees for New gTLD Dispute Resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/wipo-fees-clean-19sep11-en.pdf> * Legal Rights Objection FAQs<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/> * Legal Rights Objection Filing Guidelines * [coming soon: model pleadings] Filing a Legal Rights Objection at WIPO: What You Need To Know The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has been appointed by ICANN as the exclusive provider of dispute resolution services for trademark based "pre-delegation" Legal Rights Objections under ICANN's New gTLD Program. This mechanism forms part of the available Trademark Rights Protection Mechanisms for New gTLDs<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/rpm/>. Below are responses to some frequently asked questions about Legal Rights Objections; these responses summarize information found in the authoritative ICANN Applicant Guidebook<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/objection-procedures-clean-19sep11…>. ICANN also separately provides an Objection and Dispute Resolution Fact Sheet<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/objection-dispute-resolution-fact-…>. * What is a Legal Rights Objection? <http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#1a> * Does ICANN offer other types of objection options?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#2a> * What criteria will a panel use to determine the outcome of a Legal Rights Objection?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#3a> * When can a Legal Rights Objection be filed?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#4a> * How does a rights owner submit a Legal Rights Objection?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#5a> * Is it necessary for an applicant to file a response to a Legal Rights Objection?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#6a> * What are the main stages of a Legal Rights Objection?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#7a> * How many rounds of pleadings are involved?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#8a> * Are there hearings?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#9a> * Can the parties mediate/settle their dispute?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#10a> * How much does it cost to file/defend a Legal Rights Objection?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#11a> * Are there language requirements? <http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#12a> * Are there word/page limits?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#13a> * Who are the experts available for appointment?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#14a> * How is the expert panel appointed?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#15a> * What are the remedies available?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#16a> * What happens if there is more than one objection to an applied-for New gTLD?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#17a> * Is the panel's determination made publicly available?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#18a> * Do parties retain their court options?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#19a> * What is the WIPO Center's role in Legal Rights Objections?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#20a> * Background on WIPO's involvement in Legal Rights Objections<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#21a> * What trademark protection mechanisms are available after new gTLDs are approved?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#22a> * Additional information on WIPO's involvement in the Domain Name System<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#23a> * Questions?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#24a> What is a Legal Rights Objection?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> Prior to ICANN's approval of a New gTLD, third parties may file a formal objection to an application on several grounds, including, for trademark owners and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs), on the basis of a "Legal Rights Objection." When such an objection is filed, an independent panel (comprised of one or three external, neutral experts) will determine whether the applicant's potential use of the applied-for gTLD would be likely to infringe (described below) the objector's existing trademark, or IGO name or acronym. Does ICANN offer other types of objection options?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> To address potential disputes over new gTLD applications, ICANN offers three other types of pre-delegation objection-based dispute resolution procedures which are not administered by WIPO, namely, "String Confusion Objection," "Limited Public Interest Objection," and "Community Objection." For the latter two types of objections, ICANN is also making available an "Independent Objector" by way of public service. ICANN has furthermore established a process for the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to provide "GAC Advice on New gTLDs" concerning applications identified by governments as problematic. For more detailed information on all ICANN objection options, see Module 3<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/objection-procedures-11jan12-en…> of the ICANN Applicant Guidebook. What criteria will a panel use to determine the outcome of a Legal Rights Objection?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> As provided for in section 3.5.2 of the ICANN Applicant Guidebook, the independent panel will determine whether the potential use of the applied-for gTLD by the applicant: (i) takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector's registered or unregistered trademark or service mark ("mark") or IGO name or acronym, or (ii) unjustifiably impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector's mark or IGO name or acronym, or (iii) otherwise creates an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for gTLD and the objector's mark or IGO name or acronym. The panel will ordinarily determine the merits of the objection based solely on the parties' pleadings, and may make reference to a range of non-exclusive consideration factors listed below. For an objection based on trademark rights, the panel will consider the following non exclusive consideration factors: 1. Whether the applied-for gTLD is identical or similar, including in appearance, phonetic sound, or meaning, to the objector's existing mark. 2. Whether the objector's acquisition and use of rights in the mark has been bona fide. 3. Whether and to what extent there is recognition in the relevant sector of the public of the sign corresponding to the gTLD, as the mark of the objector, of the applicant or of a third party. 4. Applicant's intent in applying for the gTLD, including whether the applicant, at the time of application for the gTLD, had knowledge of the objector's mark, or could not have reasonably been unaware of that mark, and including whether the applicant has engaged in a pattern of conduct whereby it applied for or operates TLDs or registrations in TLDs which are identical or confusingly similar to the marks of others. 5. Whether and to what extent the applicant has used, or has made demonstrable preparations to use, the sign corresponding to the gTLD in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a bona fide provision of information in a way that does not interfere with the legitimate exercise by the objector of its mark rights. 6. Whether the applicant has marks or other intellectual property rights in the sign corresponding to the gTLD, and, if so, whether any acquisition of such a right in the sign, and use of the sign, has been bona fide, and whether the purported or likely use of the gTLD by the applicant is consistent with such acquisition or use. 7. Whether and to what extent the applicant has been commonly known by the sign corresponding to the gTLD, and if so, whether any purported or likely use of the gTLD by the applicant is consistent therewith and bona fide. 8. Whether the applicant's intended use of the gTLD would create a likelihood of confusion with the objector's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the gTLD. For an objection based on rights in the name or acronym of an IGO, the panel will consider the following non-exclusive consideration factors: 1. Whether the applied-for gTLD is identical or similar, including in appearance, phonetic sound or meaning, to the name or acronym of the objecting IGO. 2. Historical coexistence of the IGO and the applicant's use of a similar name or acronym. Factors considered may include: a. Level of global recognition of both entities; b. Length of time the entities have been in existence; c. Public historical evidence of their existence, which may include whether the objecting IGO has communicated its name or abbreviation under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. 3. Whether and to what extent the applicant has used, or has made demonstrable preparations to use, the sign corresponding to the TLD in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a bona fide provision of information in a way that does not interfere with the legitimate exercise of the objecting IGO's name or acronym. 4. Whether and to what extent the applicant has been commonly known by the sign corresponding to the applied-for gTLD, and if so, whether any purported or likely use of the gTLD by the applicant is consistent therewith and bona fide. 5. Whether the applicant's intended use of the applied-for gTLD would create a likelihood of confusion with the objecting IGO's name or acronym as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the TLD. When can a Legal Rights Objection be filed?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> After closing the application window (from January 12 to April 12, 2012) and posting all applications, ICANN will announce the opening of the objection filing window. Currently, the objection filing window is anticipated to be seven months, from approximately May 1 to December 1, 2012. (More or less in parallel with the latter filing window, ICANN will be undertaking a so-called Initial Evaluation of applications for compliance with ICANN Applicant Guidebook formalities.) How does a rights owner submit a Legal Rights Objection?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> All Legal Rights Objections must be submitted electronically to the WIPO Center by email to lro(a)wipo.int<mailto:lro@wipo.int> using the WIPO Center's model form [coming soon] with a copy of the objection to ICANN and the applicant. The objection filing fee must be submitted at the time of filing. An objection must contain at least the following: (i) the names and full contact information of the objector; (ii) a statement of the objector's basis for standing under the procedure; and (iii) a confirmation of the basis for the objection (i.e., "Legal Rights Objection") including "an explanation of the validity of the objection and why the objection should be upheld." Is it necessary for an applicant to file a response to a Legal Rights Objection?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> Responses must be submitted electronically to the WIPO Center by email to lro(a)wipo.int<mailto:lro@wipo.int> using the WIPO Center's model form [coming soon] with a copy to ICANN and the objector. The response filing fee must be submitted at the time of filing of the response. A response must contain at least the following: (i) the names and full contact information of the applicant; and (ii) a "point-by-point response to the statements made in the objection." An applicant's failure to reply to an objection would be considered a "default" and would result in the objection being deemed successful. What are the main stages of a Legal Rights Objection?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> On receipt of an objection or response, the WIPO Center will conduct an administrative compliance review and process the case filing fee. Any administrative deficiencies must be corrected within five (5) days of notification by the Center. Within 30 days of the close of the objection window, ICANN will publish a "Dispute Announcement" listing all administratively compliant objections. The WIPO Center will then notify applicants of any objections; applicants will then have 30 days to file a response. Within 30 days of receiving a response, the WIPO Center will appoint the expert panel. Normally the panel will render its determination within 45 days of appointment. A graphic overview is provided by the respective "Objection and Dispute Resolution<http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/icannobjectionflowchart.pdf>" and "Evaluation Process<http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/icannevaluationprocess.pdf>" flow charts found in the ICANN Applicant Guidebook. How many rounds of pleadings are involved?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> While the panel has discretion to order or admit additional written statements, the ICANN dispute resolution procedure typically contemplates a single round of pleadings. Are there hearings?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> Only in exceptional cases may a panel hold a hearing (by videoconference if possible). Can the parties mediate/settle their dispute?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> In the event the parties wish to participate in mediation/settlement negotiations, at any point during the proceedings, they may jointly request a 30-day suspension. The WIPO Center can assist the parties in finding an appropriately qualified mediator to help the parties in seeking to reach a mutually satisfactory settlement of their dispute, under the WIPO Mediation Rules<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules/>. In such event, the WIPO Center will not charge any additional fee for its mediation case administration services. How much does it cost to file/defend a Legal Rights Objection?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> For a case involving an objection to one application (i.e., for one gTLD) to be decided by one expert, the fee will be USD 10,000 for each party (this includes a non-refundable USD 2,000 case administration fee), subject to a refund of the expert fee (USD 8,000) to the prevailing party. Different fee arrangements apply to three-member panels and to possible consolidation scenarios; full details are provided in the WIPO Schedule of Fees for New gTLD Dispute Resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/wipo-fees-clean-19sep11-en.pdf>. Non-payment of fees by an objector will result in rejection of the objection, without panel appointment. Non payment of response fees by an applicant will result in the objection being deemed successful. Are there language requirements?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> In all cases, the language of proceedings is English. According to the ICANN Applicant Guidebook, "Parties may submit supporting evidence in its original language, provided and subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, that such evidence is accompanied by a certified or otherwise official English translation of all relevant text." Are there word/page limits?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> The substantive portion of an objection or response is limited to 5,000 words or 20 pages, whichever is less, excluding attachments. The objector or applicant must also list, describe and provide copies of any attached supporting evidence. Who are the experts available for appointment?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> The WIPO Center will be posting a list of experts available for appointment prior to the start of the objection filing period. This list will take into account requirements of professional expertise and may be subject to additional development by the WIPO Center in light of case needs. As part of the process of appointment to an actual case, experts are required to affirm their neutrality by signing the WIPO Center's Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence [coming soon]. How is the expert panel appointed?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> Unless the parties agree on a three-member expert panel, for a single-member expert panel the WIPO Center will appoint the expert in its sole discretion. Where the parties agree on a three member expert panel, each party may submit a list of three candidates from the WIPO Center's list of experts, one of whom would be appointed as the respective party-elected expert co-panelist; the WIPO Center will then provide the parties with a list of five candidates from the WIPO Center's list of experts for the parties' respective ranking, with a view to the WIPO Center's appointment of the third (presiding) expert panelist. What are the remedies available?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> The remedies are limited to the success or dismissal of the objection. There are no monetary damages, but the prevailing party is entitled to a partial refund of the panel fee (as described above). According to the ICANN Applicant Guidebook, a panel determination is "considered an expert determination and advice that ICANN will accept within the dispute resolution process." Such determination is independent of any determination under either of the other types of ICANN objection options available. What happens if there is more than one objection to an applied-for New gTLD?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> In certain scenarios, such as where multiple objections are filed against the same application, to streamline costs and for procedural efficiency, the WIPO Center will endeavor where appropriate to consolidate such objections for determination by a single panel; in such consolidated cases, a separate determination would be rendered for each objection. Within seven days of the WIPO Center's notification of the commencement of the response filing period to the applicant, the parties themselves may also propose, for the WIPO Center's determination, in its discretion, that objections be consolidated. The WIPO Center may take into account factors such as whether the same or similar application is at issue; any request/opposition of the parties; the trademarks/evidence relied-upon; or expert availability. Is the panel's determination made publicly available?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> Unless in exceptional circumstances the panel deems it appropriate to redact portions of its determination, the WIPO Center will post each determination in full on its website. Also, upon registering an objection for processing, the WIPO Center will post on its website the following information about the objection: the proposed string to which the objection is directed; the names of the objector and applicant; the grounds for objection (i.e., "Legal Rights Objection"); and the date of the WIPO Center's receipt of the objection. Do parties retain their court options?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> The availability of the Legal Rights Objection as an administrative dispute resolution option does not preclude court options which either party may have to submit the dispute to court. What is the WIPO Center's role in Legal Rights Objections?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> The WIPO Center's role is limited to case administration, including verifying that the objection and response satisfy the relevant filing requirements, issuing case related notifications, appointment of the panel of experts, coordinating communications between the parties and panel, and otherwise facilitating efficient case resolution. The WIPO Center is independent and impartial in this case administration role; the merits of an objection are determined by the appointed expert. Background on WIPO's involvement in Legal Rights Objections<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> In December 2007, ICANN sought "Expressions of Interest from Potential Dispute Resolution Service Providers for [its] New gTLD Program." In January 2008, the WIPO Center signaled its readiness to assist ICANN in devising and applying appropriate trademark-based dispute resolution procedures for New gTLDs. From that time, using the WIPO "Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Marks, and Other Industrial Property Rights in Signs, on the Internet<http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/development_iplaw/pdf/pub845.pdf>" as a foundation, the WIPO Center has collaborated with ICANN on the development of substantive criteria and procedural rules for pre-(TLD) delegation dispute resolution for trademark-based Legal Rights Objections as set out in module 3.5.2 of the ICANN Applicant Guidebook<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/objection-procedures-clean-19sep11…>. The WIPO Center subsequently accepted to administer disputes under the ICANN Legal Rights Objection Procedure<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/new-gtld-drp-clean-19sep11-en.pdf>; the ICANN Applicant Guidebook includes the resulting WIPO Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/wipo-rules-clean-19sep11-en.pdf> including a Schedule of Fees and Costs<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/wipo-fees-clean-19sep11-en.pdf>. What trademark protection mechanisms are available after new gTLDs are approved?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> Beyond the above-described pre-delegation objection procedures (available prior to any new gTLD being approved and becoming operational), ICANN has established a range of "Rights Protection Mechanisms" (RPMs). These include a Trademark Clearinghouse (for use in connection with Sunrise periods and Trademark Claims services), a Uniform Rapid Suspension system (URS), and a Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP). In addition, the existing Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP<http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htm>) will be applicable to all new gTLDs. More information on these RPMs can be found in the WIPO Center's overview of Trademark Rights Protection Mechanisms for New gTLDs<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/>. Additional information on WIPO's involvement in the Domain Name System<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> WIPO has been engaging with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for the Domain Name System (DNS) since it conducted the First WIPO Internet Domain Name Process<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/processes/process1/> in 1998 and 1999, which provided the blueprint for ICANN's adoption of the UDRP. With a globally unique range of jurisprudential resources<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/resources/>, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center is the leading provider of UDRP case administration services; through 2011, it has processed over 22,000 such cases. The Center furthermore has engaged in a range of further activities such as Sunrises<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/reports/>, ccTLD policy advice and case administration<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cctld/>, and policy input for New gTLDs<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/newgtld/>. * WIPO Observations on New gTLD Dispute Resolution Mechanisms<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/newgtld/> * Selected WIPO correspondence with ICANN<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/resources/icann/> * Domain Name Disputes (including UDRP)<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/> Questions?<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/#top> For more information about the Legal Rights Objection procedure, please direct any inquiries by email to lro(a)wipo.int<mailto:lro@wipo.int>, or by telephone to +41 22 338 8247 or (toll free) 0800 888 549. More detailed information can be found in the ICANN Applicant Guidebook<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb>. Contact Arbitration and Mediation Center Geneva Arbitration and Mediation Center Singapore 34, chemin des Colombettes P.O. Box 18 1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland T +4122 338 8247 or 0800 888 549 F +4122 740 3700 or 0800 888 550 Maxwell Chambers 32 Maxwell Road #02-02 Singapore 069115 T +65 6225 2129 F +65 6225 3568 Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4807 - Release Date: 02/13/12

1 0

Next gTLD Round
by Phil Corwin 09 Feb '12

09 Feb '12

http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-07feb12-en.htm 1. Reaffirmation of second round of applications in New gTLD Program Prior to the consideration of this item, Board members and liaisons that have been identified as having a potential conflict of interest related to the New gTLD Program were excused from the meeting. Whereas, the first application window for the New gTLD Program opened on 12 January 2012 and will close on 12 April 2012. Whereas, the GNSO policy recommendations accepted by the Board on 26 June 2008 stated that ICANN should introduce new gTLDs in rounds. Whereas, in the process of forming the New gTLD Program, ICANN has committed to undertake certain work prior to initiating a second round of an application window for the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2012.02.07.05), ICANN is committed to opening a second application window for the New gTLD Program as expeditiously as possible. Resolved (2012.02.07.06), the Board directs the CEO to publish a document describing the work plan required prior to initiating a second application window for the New gTLD Program, specifically addressing the GAC requirement for assessment of trademark protections and root zone operation, and identifying other prerequisites to the next round of new gTLDs. Resolved(2012.02.07.07), the Board directs the CEO to continue working with the ICANN community to refine the work plan and address the prerequisites needed to open the second round of new gTLDs. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0