February 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

The issue of "closed generic" TLDs (10 minutes)
by Jonathan Robinson 05 Mar '13

05 Mar '13

Marika, Is there any chance that you / staff could provide some background on this before and/or at the Feb 14 meeting. Item 7: INFORMATION & DISCUSION - The issue of "closed generic" TLDs (10 minutes) The New gTLD Program Committee recently directed the ICANN CEO to request the GNSO to provide guidance on the issue of "closed generic" TLDs, , concurrent with the opening of the public comment forum and if the GNSO wishes, to provide such guidance. Guidance on this issue is requested to be provided by the close of the public comment forum. (7 March) 7.1 Update 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps (if any) What is the issue, which applications are affected, why is this on the agenda etc? Many thanks, Jonathan

4 7

Implementation of Expired Registration Recovery Policy
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 Feb '13

28 Feb '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-28feb13-en.htm Implementation of Expired Registration Recovery Policy 28 February 2013 ICANN is pleased to announce the implementation of the Expired Registration Recovery Policy ("ERRP")<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/errp>. This policy was developed from the Generic Name Supporting Organization ("GNSO")'s Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery ("PEDNR") recommendations, which were adopted by ICANN's Board of Directors on 28 October 2011. The policy was drafted in consultation with the GNSO's PEDNR Implementation Review Team and was posted for public comment on 11 October 2012. The ERRP is expected to promote better understanding of registrants' options and help alleviate common issues related to the expiration of gTLD registrations. This policy is intended to help align registrant expectations with registrar practices by establishing certain minimum communications requirements and making renewal and redemption of domain name registrations uniformly available in prescribed circumstances. Some of the most notable provisions of the ERRP include the following i<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-28feb13-en.htm#foo…>: 1. To help prevent unintended non-renewal of domain name registrations, registrars will be required to notify registered name holders of the expiration of their registrations at least two times: approximately one month prior to the expiration date and, again, approximately one week prior to the expiration date. 2. All gTLD registries must offer a Redemption Grace Period of 30 days immediately following the deletion of a registration. (Sponsored gTLDs are exempt, and not required to offer a Redemption Grace Period.) During the Redemption Grace Period, the registrant must be permitted by its registrar to restore the deleted registration. 3. To promote consumer choice and awareness, registrars must make their renewal and redemption fees reasonably available to registered name holders and prospective registered name holders at the time of registration of a domain name. 4. As in the past, registrars may delete registrations at any time after they expire, subject to applicable consensus policies and provisions of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/ra-agreement-21may09-en.h…>. However, the ERRP requires that resolution of the domain name be interrupted for a period of time after expiration, but before deletion, of the name to help make the registrant aware of the expiration of its name. Additionally, any parking page hosted by the registrar at the expired domain name must include or point to renewal instructions. All ICANN-accredited registrars and gTLD registries are required to comply with the Expired Registration Recovery Policy by no later than 31 August 2013. Consistent with the recommendations of the GNSO's PEDNR Working Group, ICANN is in the process of developing educational materials in consultation with interested stakeholders to help the community better understand this policy and how it applies to them. A link to the ERRP can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/errp<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/errp> ________________________________ i<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-28feb13-en.htm#not…> The actual language of the ERRP is binding on ICANN-accredited registrars and gTLD registries, not the summary provided here. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: TMCH
by Jonathan Robinson 28 Feb '13

28 Feb '13

All, Please see attached for our final response to Fadi Chehade.. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 28 February 2013 15:45 To: 'Fadi Chehade' Cc: 'David Olive' Subject: RE: TMCH Dear Fadi, Thank-you for your e-mail below and your subsequent clarification that you expected a response from the GNSO Council by 28 February 2013. I am pleased to provide you with that written response attached to this e-mail. Best wishes, Jonathan From: Fadi Chehade [mailto:fadi.chehade@icann.org] Sent: 04 December 2012 22:47 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Margie Milam; David Olive Subject: TMCH Dear Jonathan, As reported in my recent blog on the Trademark Clearinghouse (see: http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark-clearinghouse-me…), the recent implementation TMCH related discussions led to the development of a strawman model to address some of the proposed improvements requested by the BC/IPC. I am very pleased with the efforts shown by the participants in these discussions, as they reflect a willingness to explore improvements to the TMCH and the rights protection mechanisms available in new GTLDs. I am seeking policy guidance from the GNSO Council on two items as part of the next steps for the implementation of the TMCH, namely, the Strawman Proposal and the IPC/BC proposal for limited defensive registrations. Each of these documents are posted for public comment (see:http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm) to allow the ICANN community the opportunity to comment on these proposals. Specifically, policy guidance is sought on the portion that pertains to the expansion of the scope of the trademark claims, although comments on any aspect of the Strawman Model is welcome in the event the Council is interested in broadening its response. The specific proposal is that: Where there are domain labels that have been found to be the subject of previous abusive registrations (e.g., as a result of a UDRP or court proceeding), a limited number (up to 50) of these may be added to a Clearinghouse record (i.e., these names would be mapped to an existing record for which the trademark has already been verified by the Clearinghouse). Attempts to register these as domain names will generate the Claims notices as well as the notices to the rights holder. Not included in the Strawman Model is the IPC/BC proposal for a limited preventative registrations. In general, there was not support among non-IPC/BC participants for solutions to the issue of second level defensive registrations among the participants in the TMCH meetings. After hearing concerns regarding this issue, members of the IPC/BC provided a description of a preventative mechanism, the “Limited Preventative Registration,” which has also been published for public comment. As this issue is relevant to a request from the New GTLD Program Committee’s April resolution where it requested “the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken”(2012.04.10.NG2), I am seeking GNSO Council feedback on this IPC/BC proposal as well. It would be ideal if the GNSO Council could take up these issues at its December meeting. Finally, addressing some of the criticisms on the process used by Staff in convening these meetings, I hope that you can appreciate that Staff is not circumventing the GNSO processes. The Strawman Model and my blog posting always clarified that this request to the GNSO Council was coming. One of my goals as CEO is to enhance collaboration in the ICANN community as it tackles difficult issues. I truly believe that the development of strawman proposals on this and other issues can be a useful tool to inform policy and implementation discussions. I hope that you will consider this request in that light. We look forward to the Council’s reply to this request. Best Personal Regards, Fadi Chehade President and CEO ICANN

2 1

New gTLD Program: String Similarity Contention Sets
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 Feb '13

28 Feb '13

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-26feb13-en.htm New gTLD Program: String Similarity Contention Sets 26 February 2013 ICANN is publishing today the contention sets identified by the string similarity review for applications submitted as part of the New gTLD Program. Review the full list of contention sets here: <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/similarity- contention-26feb13-en.pdf> PDF [162 KB], <https://icann.box.com/shared/static/zhomj6atxakcv80iope5.csv> CSV [65 KB] or from the <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/corner> Applicants' Corner page on the new gTLD microsite. Overall statistics about Contention Sets * 2 Non-Exact Match Contention Sets * .hotels & .hoteis * .unicorn & .unicom * 230 Exact Match Contention Sets * 754 Total Applications in contention The <http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus> Current Application Status page on the new gTLD microsite will be updated to reflect these contention sets. The role of the String Similarity Panel is to assess whether a proposed gTLD string creates a probability of user confusion due to similarity with any reserved name, any existing TLD, any requested IDN ccTLD, or any new gTLD string applied for in the current application round. Per the Applicant Guidebook, a contention set is a group of two or more applications containing identical or visually similar applied-for gTLD strings. For more information on string contention procedures, please refer to <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-04 jun12-en.pdf> Module 4 [PDF, 428 KB] of the Applicant Guidebook. As a reminder, the objection filing period is open until 13 March 2013. For more information refer to the <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr> Objection & Dispute Resolution page. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RySG Invitation to Community Consultation Teleconference on Monday, March 4 -- Discuss ICANN's Proposed Registry Agreement Changes
by Neuman, Jeff 28 Feb '13

28 Feb '13

Dear Councilors, I wanted to personally invite each of you as well as members from your SGs and Constituencies to a call being hosted by the RySG and the NTAG on Monday, March 4th. We look forward to this open consultation with the community. **** RySG/NTAG Community-Wide Consultation on the New gTLD Agreement Modifications***** The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and its New gTLD Applicant Group (NTAG) invite your participation in a community-wide consultation teleconference on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 1500 UTC. On 5 February 2013, nearly nine months after new gTLD applicants spent hundreds of millions of dollars in anticipation of the new introduction of new gTLDs, ICANN proposed a series of last-minute material changes to the registry agreement contained in the Final New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. Included within these changes are a brand new process for making additional Public Interest Commitments (PICs), a unilateral right for ICANN to amend the registry agreement, the requirement to use only registrars that have executed the yet-to-be-completed 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement and a host of other changes summarized in a 21-page summary of changes document. (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-ch…). The RySG believes that the latest proposed version of the Final Agreement contains so many serious and fundamental flaws that it should be withdrawn in its entirety and the previously agreed-to version in the Applicant Guidebook should be used. We oppose certain proposed amendments, and believe that other provisions need further thought and refinement. We are equally concerned about the timeline ICANN has imposed on the community's consideration of these proposals, and the mechanism by which ICANN proposes to adopt and implement the changes. The issues at stake in the short and long term deserve sufficient time and consideration to ensure that new gTLDs are offered in a secure and stable manner and are successful in fostering innovation via sound business models that support the needs of all stakeholders in ways that have been developed via the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder process. The RySG's full public comments are available here: (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html) ICANN has posted the proposed changes for public comment which ends on February 26, 2013, with a reply period that closes on March 20, 2013. In order to facilitate the receipt of public input in this short amount of time, the RySG will host this open community-wide consultation to discuss the proposed agreement modifications. The meeting will be held on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 1500 [UTC]. We cordially invite applicants, members of the community, the ICANN Board and the ICANN staff to attend this consultation. Please open the attachment to find the Adobe connect link and teleconference details. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

1 0

Document and motion Deadline Wednesday, 6 March 2013 for GNSO Council meeting 14 March 2013 at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 27 Feb '13

27 Feb '13

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.WEDNESDAY,6 March 2013) of the GNSO Council meeting on 14 March 2013 at 15:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+20… Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Feb 28 deadline on IGO protections - draft letter
by Thomas Rickert 27 Feb '13

27 Feb '13

All, following last week's call, please find below the draft response to the Board that I have been working on with Jonathan. Your comments / feedback is most welcome. Remember the deadline is approaching rapidly, so we should receive your feedback by the end of the week. Kind regards, Thomas Dear Steve, At the 26 November 2012 meeting, the ICANN Board requested that the ICANN GNSO Council advise the Board by no later than 28 February 2013 if it is aware of any concerns, such as with the global public interest or the security or stability of the DNS, that the Board should take into account in making its decision about whether to include second level protections for certain IGO names and acronyms by inclusion on a Reserved Names List in section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook, applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the first round of the New gTLD Program. With this letter, the GNSO Council would like to respond to that request. With respect to the temporary protections for the International Olympic Committee and the International Committee of the Red Cross / Red Crescent, a directly comparable request was made to the GNSO Council and the Board asked for a response by the end of January. In the light of the 20 December 2012 GNSO Council decision on temporary protections, we understand that the Board deemed the question of concerns with the global public interest or the security or stability of the DNS sufficiently answered. Although we note that the GNSO has not yet completed its PDP on potential protections for the organizations in question. The GNSO Council believes that the question as to whether or not there are concerns with respect the global public interest and security or stability of the DNS can only be properly and fully answered upon the completion of the thorough work associated with a PDP. In this regard, please be aware that GNSO Working Group working on this issue (IGO / INGO WG) has deliberated on this specific point and concerns have been voiced that provisional protections for IGO names can be dealt with in the same way as the IOC / RCRC designations via the use of temporary protections. Therefore the question of the presence or absence of such concerns could only be answered upon the conclusion of the PDP. [Conclusion of the 14 February telco] - Minority positions have been advanced within the Working Group that the Public Interest may be harmed by temporary protections?? Rest assured that the Working Group is working on this extremely complicated matter with the focus and urgency you would expect and that the GNSO Council is willing to provide a comprehensive update on the progress that has been made with this policy matter at the earliest convenience of the Board.

3 2

RE: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council
by Winterfeldt, Brian 27 Feb '13

27 Feb '13

Dear all: As promised on our last Council teleconference, here is written feedback from the IPC with respect to the current draft response to Fadi Chehadé on strawman solution and limited preventative registrations proposal. More specifically, this is a critique of the draft GNSO Council statement on the strawman which we feel does not accurately reflect a consensus or considered analysis as urged by Chair Crocker. The list is non-exhaustive and our intent is to demonstrate that there are a number of flaws in the current draft that we should address as a Council. • The IPC is concerned with the statement that the strawman solution represents “expansion of trademark rights beyond law.” Apart from being a legal conclusion, it implies that the strawman is composed of solutions or protections to which trademark owners have no legal right. To the contrary, trademark owners have the legal right to prevent infringement of their marks, and the rights protection mechanisms being established as part of the new gTLD program are founded on this fundamental right. The Strawman merely addresses the implementation of this policy, not its extension or expansion. • The IPC believes the use of the term “majority” throughout the letter is misleading as it minimizes the fact that an entire Stakeholder Group—indeed the Stakeholder Group whose members will bear the greatest economic impact from inadequate rights protection mechanisms—unanimously agrees that additional rights protection mechanisms are essential. Put another way, a vote should be necessary before asserting that a “majority of the Council” feels a certain way, particularly the presumption that “protection policies for new gTLDs are sufficient and need not be revisited.” It is also important to note that not all stakeholder groups or constituencies submitted comments in the public comment forum, so we should not assume that there is a majority in support. It might be an overstatement. Of the statements that were submitted, in addition to the BC/IPC comments, the ISPC "endorsed the intent and critical importance of preventing fraudulent registrations and reducing defensive measures and agrees that the RPMs currently in the AGB may be improved; however, ISPCP is neutral on the subject of specific RPMs." The use of the term "majority" usually refers to a majority in each house. However, With the IPC, ISP and BC taking a different approach, we believe the statement of "majority " in support of the letter is not really accurate. Sending the letter as written would go against the spirit of the carefully thought-out comments of these groups. • There is a difference between “agree[ment] to socialize these [proposals] to the rest of the GNSO” as Dr. Crocker is quoted as saying and the requisite GNSO Council support asserted in the draft letter. Indeed, here are a few more compelling and recent quotes from Fadi Chehadé during the NCPH intersessional meeting, “… I still believe is an issue, I don't believe that the claims or the things that you brought to my attention, you know, are not right. Quite the opposite, I think they're very right, that's why I engaged, that's why I jumped on it.” “Some of the things that came out of the strawman discussions make sense and are implementation decisions.” And, “unless the community vehemently disagrees … that work will not be counted out, we will look at it in good faith.” Most recently, in Mr. Chehadé’s February 13, 2013 video blog, he affirmed that the Strawman Proposal is absolutely legitimate and that the statements he made in Amsterdam on this topic were taken out of context. He confirmed that his “mistake” was in the way he convened the meetings, and that the work on the Strawman is “not throw away work”, but rather, it is important work. • The letter cites ICANN’s goal of advancing “competition in the domain name industry,” but fails to reflect temperance with the new gTLD policy toward not infringing the legal rights of others which advances consumer trust of the system. • The letter is silent with respect to the thirty-day sunrise notice period—an aspect of the strawman solution that most public comments seem to agree is a noncontroversial implementation detail. • Comments on Claims 1 and Claims 2 appear seriously inaccurate and seems to ignore the contours of the process and raise a number of implementation questions as policy matters—“How would payments be made and allocated? How do Registries and Registrars adapt their technical systems…” etc. • Claims 2 imposes fewer obligations and offers fewer benefits than Claims 1. Thus, “lightweight” seems apt to us. • Most conventional dictionaries define “disenfranchise” as follows, “to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or some privilege or immunity; especially: to deprive of the right to vote.” The strawman has nothing to do with the right to vote. So what is the legal right to which you are referring here? If what is meant is that adopting the Strawman would deprive any stakeholder of a voice in the development of the implementation of the policy that intellectual property should be protected in the new gTLD, then that would ignore the input of numerous stakeholders. If anything, the Strawman process has enfranchised more concerned parties than ever before. • The IPC fervently disagrees with dismissal of the Limited Preventative Registration proposal as a “blocking mechanism.” Again, this also seems seriously inaccurate and appears to ignore the contours of the proposal. To sum up, it is a low-cost bulk sunrise registration. It would provide precisely the same benefits to brand owners as participation in each individual new gTLD sunrise period to which they are qualified to participate in. · The statement that this is entirely "a matter of policy" ignores the fact that the Strawman proposal resulted from “implementation discussions on the Trademark Clearinghouse and its associated rights protection mechanism.” http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm. The fact that Mr. Chehadé has asked the GNSO Council for input on the Strawman proposal does not now turn it into a policy matter. In fact, the Limited Preventative Registration mechanism was left out of the Strawman proposal not because it was considered policy, but rather simply because it did not achieve consensus among the participants in the implementation meetings. It is thus completely within the Council's purview to provide substantive input on these issues without resorting to a PDP. Indeed, the original rights protection mechanisms did not stem from a PDP, but from an informal GNSO process (the Implementation Recommendation Team). Formation of a working group to explore these implementation issues substantively is an option that has not been fully explored. • The response ignores the substantial number of comments submitted during the public comment forum—which reflect a significant interest in looking at this issue further from inside and, significantly, outside the IP community. For example, the ALAC statement supports a number of elements of the proposal, and encourages the GNSO to fairly evaluate them. The proposed GNSO letter does not do so. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> +1 212.506.3935 direct +1 212.506.3950 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP – New York 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. ------------------------------------------- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson[SMTP:JONATHAN.ROBINSON@IPRACON.COM] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:59:43 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council Auto forwarded by a Rule All, A reminder that we really need to keep this moving. I’d like to close it off this week if at all possible. Jonathan From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Petter Rindforth Sent: 14 February 2013 10:39 To: john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>; volker(a)greimann.de<mailto:volker@greimann.de> Cc: Mason Cole; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> List Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council "If Trademark law provided the level of protection to automatically include non-exact matches in the manner proposed in the strawman, lawmakers would have implemented such a list. Yet none did. While the trademark protection can be extended to additional near match strings, it is the duty of the courts to decide this. And just because a certain string has been used in an infringing manner, that does not mean that there are not also non-infringing manners in which the same string may legitimately be used." This is in fact up to each Examiner of each national PTO. That’s why it may take up to 10 months (or more) to pass such trademark examination processes. I do not think such time would be accepted by domain name applicants.... Strawman is dealing with an existing protection system in a more time optimized way. / Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you On 14 feb 2013 00:36 "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net> wrote: If that were so, there would be less of a problem, but it is not so, in my opinion: -Does a trademark allow its owner to prevent the use of the mark by third parties in other classes, or if the mark is their name, etc, etc? I think not. There are reasons why trademarks are limited to classes and regions and why legitimate use of the same trademarked term cannot be prohibited. Yet LPR would do just that. If any legitimate potential registrant missed the sunrise period or decided to wait for a cheaper registration period, LPR would block even legitimate registrations. -Does a trademark require otherwise unrelated third parties to implement and build and maintain a system at their own costs that is solely used to inform others of a potential legal conflict, confuse customers with information potentially irrelevant to their planned use and that generally interferes with the customary flow of business by scaring away or confusing potential legitimate customers and delaying orders or inquiries? I think not. Yet Claims II does just that to registrants, registrars and registries. I am not aware of any other industry that at their own cost had to create a warning system to inform third parties of potential trademark abuse. These are just the easiest examples of why the Strawman and the attached LPR proposal will, in my opinion create new protections. The claims process in itself is a new right for trademark holders not previously granted by trademark law, so any extension of the time period carefully considered and agreed upon by the community expands the reach of this new right for trademark holders. These proposals have been on the table before in some form or other and have been rejected by the community. Fadi Chehade’s has stated himself in his letter to the U.S. Congress that the 60 days period should not be extended unilaterally by ICANN, yet this is what is proposed now. The extension of claims to non-exact matches was previously rejected by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team, i.e. a GNSO created team. If Trademark law provided the level of protection to automatically include non-exact matches in the manner proposed in the strawman, lawmakers would have implemented such a list. Yet none did. While the trademark protection can be extended to additional near match strings, it is the duty of the courts to decide this. And just because a certain string has been used in an infringing manner, that does not mean that there are not also non-infringing manners in which the same string may legitimately be used. These proposals create a new fence to protect trademark holders from legitimate and illegitimate registrations of their marks alike. Solely the 30 day notice period does not create any new rights specific to trademark holders. The rest is a matter for a PDP, not for a closed door, no outside communication allowed session. ICANN should not deviate from the multi-stakeholder principle. If any outcome of our policy development and consensus building processes is subject to unilateral revision once a small part of the community is no longer sufficiently happy with the consensus results, the multi-stakeholder model is dead. Volker I will not argue with your metaphor -- I am quite fond of apples. But I do quibble with you saying the strawman is "an expansion of the rights of a trademark holder in the domain world." Trademark rights exist (not always consistently) in all earthly realms. The strawman is not seeking to create new ones, merely to create a method by which those that already exist can be enforced. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council From: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net> Date: 2/12/13 4:25 pm To: "john(a)crediblecontext.com"<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> <john(a)crediblecontext.com><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "Mason Cole" <mcole(a)5x5com.com><mailto:mcole@5x5com.com>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org List"<mailto:council@gnso.icann.orgList> <council(a)gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> I think Fadi has made it very clear during the meeting in Amsterdam that he has now understood the BC and IPC requests that led to the strawman as a second bite of the apple, as he called it. The proposed contents of the strawman would certainly constitute an expansion of the rights of a trademark holder in the domain world. I therefore support sending the draft letter as is. Sent from my iPad On 13.02.2013, at 01:11, john(a)crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: Mason, Did I not suggest the "expansion of rights" language is a bit over the top? Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council From: Mason Cole <mcole(a)5x5com.com<mailto:mcole@5x5com.com>> Date: 2/12/13 3:00 pm To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> List" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Council colleagues -- As you know, Fadi requested of the council its input regarding the strawman proposal resulting from the BC's and IPC's request for additional RPMs in new gTLDs. On December 27, I circulated an early draft of a council reply. The communication is due very shortly, and has been taken up by a small group within the council to ensure that all points of view are represented. Because this is an agenda item for our meeting this week, at Maria Farrell's helpful suggestion, I'm sending the current draft to council so we can be prepared to discuss it then. This draft does not reflect additional input of the BC and IPC -- if this is provided prior to the meeting, I'll be happy to forward it to the council. Thanks -- Mason

6 10

ICANN's Trademark Clearinghouse to Provide Unprecedented Protections in the Domain Name Space
by Glen de Saint Géry 26 Feb '13

26 Feb '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-25feb13-en.htm ICANN's Trademark Clearinghouse to Provide Unprecedented Protections in the Domain Name Space 25 February 2013 On 26 March 2013, ICANN will unveil a global repository for trademark data, the first of its kind in the domain name space. The Trademark Clearinghouse will enable companies and individuals to protect their trademarks, while new generic Top-Level Domains<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse> are introduced into the Domain Name System. Rights holders whose trademark information has been verified by the Clearinghouse will have the opportunity to participate in a set of services designed to help protect their rights. Trademark Clearinghouse Structure Clearinghouse operations are divided into two functions: 1. Trademark Validation Beginning 26 March 2013, rights holders can submit trademark data at http://trademark-clearinghouse.com. Deloitte Enterprise Risk Services is responsible for verifying these trademark submissions. 2. Database Administration ICANN is working with IBM on management of the Trademark Clearinghouse database, including provision of relevant data to new gTLD registries and registrars<https://www.icann.org/en/about/learning/glossary/r> for Sunrise and Trademark Claims services. These systems are anticipated to be operational later in 2013. Benefits of Inclusion in the Trademark Clearinghouse Rights holders that register their marks with the Clearinghouse will receive: * Access to Sunrise Registration The Sunrise period allows eligible trademark holders the opportunity to register their marks as domain names in advance of the general public. * Notification of Registration During Sunrise and Claims periods, the Trademark Clearinghouse will alert rights holders when a domain name is registered that matches the rights holder's mark in the Clearinghouse. Learn More About the Trademark Clearinghouse * Webinars on Trademark Registration Deloitte is hosting educational webinars on 27, 28 February and 6, 14 March 2013. Space is limited. Sign up now<http://trademark-clearinghouse.com/events>. * New gTLD Program Website Find in-depth information on the Clearinghouse, including technical specifications and a historical archive documenting its development. Visit http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Action items from the GNSO Council meeting on 14 February 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry 25 Feb '13

25 Feb '13

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the minutes for the GNSO Council meeting held on 14 February, 2013, please find the list of action items arising from discussions during the meeting. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Action Item / Request Entry Date Target Date Responsible Council Member (if applicable) Responsible Staff member (if applicable) Additional Notes Status Appoint GNSO Council liaison to IRTP D WG 17/01 14 Mar Marika Konings Request for volunteers sent to the mailing list (28/1) and repeated on GNSO Council Call. Volunteers encouraged to come forward. Revise response to Fadi: TMCH / Strawman 17/01 21 Feb. Mason, Zahid, Brian, John, Maria Brian Peck Further work on Mason's initial draft letter Brian to send additional IPC comments to the mailing list. All to work with Mason to finalize draft letter by 21 February. Policy vs Implementation 17/01 ongoing All Marika Konings Continue discussions on the mailing list and consider potential next steps Paper has now been published for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-…). GNSO Council to consider whether to submit a joint statement to the public comment forum. Identify volunteers to participate in the informal organizing committee for the policy vs. implementation session in Beijing Board request for GNSO Council advice on second level protections for certain IGO names and acronyms 26 Nov 28 Feb Thomas Rickert Brian Peck Thomas to send first draft of possible Council response to the GNSO Council for review Update on status of implementation of PEDNR Recommendations 14/2 21/2 Marika Konings Circulate action items from Amsterdam meeting to mailing list 14/2 14/3 Mason Cole Glen de Saint Gery Board request for GNSO Council advice on "Closed" generic TLDs 2/2 7/3 TBC Request for Council lead to prepare a draft response based on Council discussions on 14/2 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

4 4