Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06feb12-en.htm Defensive Applications for New gTLDs Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 6 February 2012 Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains Purpose (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-06feb... Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org
Maybe I'm just sleep-deprived, but I was wondering when, whether and how ICANN decides to open public comment periods on ostensibly non-policy issues and recommendations (as this one seems to be). While I think it will be helpful to get public and open information about the source of the perception that trademark owners feel the need to defensively register at the top level, and it will certainly be useful to get more suggestions as to how ICANN can better communicate to trademark holders the current protections available (including the option of a Legal Rights Objection process), I'm curious as to: (1) what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common) soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy matters. More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done? (OTOH if this comment period relates to a policy matter that might lead to Board consideration or adoption of new measures per the Bylaws, that opens a whole other set of issues and questions ... !) I'm curious also as to what other Councilors and/or your constituents think. Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@icann.org> To:"council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 2/10/2012 10:50 AM Subject: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06feb12-en.htm Defensive Applications for New gTLDs Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 6 February 2012 Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains Purpose (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-06feb... Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
While I'm not particularly verklempt about this, I agree with Mary that it would be nice to know how and why this being done... Bill -----<Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote: ----- ======================= To: <council@gnso.icann.org> From: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Date: 02/10/2012 10:52PM Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened ======================= Maybe I'm just sleep-deprived, but I was wondering when, whether and how ICANN decides to open public comment periods on ostensibly non-policy issues and recommendations (as this one seems to be). While I think it will be helpful to get public and open information about the source of the perception that trademark owners feel the need to defensively register at the top level, and it will certainly be useful to get more suggestions as to how ICANN can better communicate to trademark holders the current protections available (including the option of a Legal Rights Objection process), I'm curious as to: (1) what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common) soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy matters. More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done? (OTOH if this comment period relates to a policy matter that might lead to Board consideration or adoption of new measures per the Bylaws, that opens a whole other set of issues and questions ... !) I'm curious also as to what other Councilors and/or your constituents think. Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@icann.org> To:"council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 2/10/2012 10:50 AM Subject: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06feb12-en.htm Defensive Applications for New gTLDs Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 6 February 2012 Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains Purpose (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-06feb... Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
It surprised me, too, to read such a request for public comment. It looks like ICANN being faced now with a never expected reaction - although that has been discussed extensively before the window opening. Learning by doing is the most effective (sometimes not efficient) way. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von william.drake@uzh.ch Gesendet: Sonntag, 12. Februar 2012 12:34 An: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened While I'm not particularly verklempt about this, I agree with Mary that it would be nice to know how and why this being done... Bill -----<Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote: ----- ======================= To: <council@gnso.icann.org> From: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Date: 02/10/2012 10:52PM Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened ======================= Maybe I'm just sleep-deprived, but I was wondering when, whether and how ICANN decides to open public comment periods on ostensibly non-policy issues and recommendations (as this one seems to be). While I think it will be helpful to get public and open information about the source of the perception that trademark owners feel the need to defensively register at the top level, and it will certainly be useful to get more suggestions as to how ICANN can better communicate to trademark holders the current protections available (including the option of a Legal Rights Objection process), I'm curious as to: (1) what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common) soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy matters. More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done? (OTOH if this comment period relates to a policy matter that might lead to Board consideration or adoption of new measures per the Bylaws, that opens a whole other set of issues and questions ... !) I'm curious also as to what other Councilors and/or your constituents think. Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@icann.org> To:"council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 2/10/2012 10:50 AM Subject: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06feb12-en.htm Defensive Applications for New gTLDs Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 6 February 2012 Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains Purpose (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-06feb... Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Can someone from the policy staff address Mary's question please? Stéphane Le 12 févr. 2012 à 21:14, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
It surprised me, too, to read such a request for public comment. It looks like ICANN being faced now with a never expected reaction - although that has been discussed extensively before the window opening. Learning by doing is the most effective (sometimes not efficient) way.
Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von william.drake@uzh.ch Gesendet: Sonntag, 12. Februar 2012 12:34 An: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened
While I'm not particularly verklempt about this, I agree with Mary that it would be nice to know how and why this being done...
Bill
-----<Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote: -----
======================= To: <council@gnso.icann.org> From: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Date: 02/10/2012 10:52PM Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened ======================= Maybe I'm just sleep-deprived, but I was wondering when, whether and how ICANN decides to open public comment periods on ostensibly non-policy issues and recommendations (as this one seems to be).
While I think it will be helpful to get public and open information about the source of the perception that trademark owners feel the need to defensively register at the top level, and it will certainly be useful to get more suggestions as to how ICANN can better communicate to trademark holders the current protections available (including the option of a Legal Rights Objection process), I'm curious as to: (1) what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common) soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy matters.
More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done?
(OTOH if this comment period relates to a policy matter that might lead to Board consideration or adoption of new measures per the Bylaws, that opens a whole other set of issues and questions ... !)
I'm curious also as to what other Councilors and/or your constituents think.
Thanks, Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>>
From: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@icann.org> To:"council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 2/10/2012 10:50 AM Subject: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06feb12-en.htm
Defensive Applications for New gTLDs
Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 6 February 2012
Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains
Purpose (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-06feb...
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Stéphane, Mary, are these the questions you would like addressed by staff? I'm curious as to: (1)
what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common) soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy matters.
More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done?
The policy staff can answer questions about specific policy-related public comment periods. I will direct your question about this specific comment period to the appropriate staff, and follow up for a response. Regarding the ATRT requirements, this was implemented, and every 6 months the staff polls the SO and AC chairs and the Councils to ask about anticipated comment periods. We have never received a response from any Council members that I know of so staff submits what we know or expect is coming up, without prioritization. Filiz Yilmaz is the staff person who worked on these changes in conjunction with the community. Your broader question might be something the Council should discuss to the degree this is a shared concern, and I would be glad to include Filiz in those discussions. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 2:09 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO; David Olive Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened Can someone from the policy staff address Mary's question please? Stéphane Le 12 févr. 2012 à 21:14, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
It surprised me, too, to read such a request for public comment. It looks like ICANN being faced now with a never expected reaction - although that has been discussed extensively before the window opening. Learning by doing is the most effective (sometimes not efficient) way.
Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von william.drake@uzh.ch Gesendet: Sonntag, 12. Februar 2012 12:34 An: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened
While I'm not particularly verklempt about this, I agree with Mary that it would be nice to know how and why this being done...
Bill
-----<Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote: -----
======================= To: <council@gnso.icann.org> From: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Date: 02/10/2012 10:52PM Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened ======================= Maybe I'm just sleep-deprived, but I was wondering when, whether and how ICANN decides to open public comment periods on ostensibly non-policy issues and recommendations (as this one seems to be).
While I think it will be helpful to get public and open information about the source of the perception that trademark owners feel the need to defensively register at the top level, and it will certainly be useful to get more suggestions as to how ICANN can better communicate to trademark holders the current protections available (including the option of a Legal Rights Objection process), I'm curious as to: (1) what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common) soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy matters.
More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done?
(OTOH if this comment period relates to a policy matter that might lead to Board consideration or adoption of new measures per the Bylaws, that opens a whole other set of issues and questions ... !)
I'm curious also as to what other Councilors and/or your constituents think.
Thanks, Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>>
From: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@icann.org> To:"council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 2/10/2012 10:50 AM Subject: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06feb12-en.htm
Defensive Applications for New gTLDs
Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 6 February 2012
Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains
Purpose (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 -06feb12-en.htm
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
To the extent that this involves policy related to the gTLDs, yes I believe this is something that should be discussed with the community (not just the council). It is hard enough to keep up with the public comment periods that we know about (or that we know will be coming), but then to be expected to comment on additional items that come up randomly at the decision of ICANN staff is too much to ask. This is especially the case where if we do not have time to respond, ICANN staff/Board will tell the world "We had a public comment period, and no one responded....and therefore (a) the public is not concerned, (b) the direction ICANN is headed is right, or (c) there really is not an issue." Although one of those conclusions may be right, it is also possible that none of them are right. The point being is that we should not have random public comment periods thrown up by ICANN staff unless there is some clear concrete objective criteria for utilizing the public comment period and that criteria is followed. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 12:34 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO; David Olive Subject: RE: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened Stéphane, Mary, are these the questions you would like addressed by staff? I'm curious as to: (1)
what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common) soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy matters.
More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done?
The policy staff can answer questions about specific policy-related public comment periods. I will direct your question about this specific comment period to the appropriate staff, and follow up for a response. Regarding the ATRT requirements, this was implemented, and every 6 months the staff polls the SO and AC chairs and the Councils to ask about anticipated comment periods. We have never received a response from any Council members that I know of so staff submits what we know or expect is coming up, without prioritization. Filiz Yilmaz is the staff person who worked on these changes in conjunction with the community. Your broader question might be something the Council should discuss to the degree this is a shared concern, and I would be glad to include Filiz in those discussions. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 2:09 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO; David Olive Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened Can someone from the policy staff address Mary's question please? Stéphane Le 12 févr. 2012 à 21:14, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
It surprised me, too, to read such a request for public comment. It looks like ICANN being faced now with a never expected reaction - although that has been discussed extensively before the window opening. Learning by doing is the most effective (sometimes not efficient) way.
Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von william.drake@uzh.ch Gesendet: Sonntag, 12. Februar 2012 12:34 An: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened
While I'm not particularly verklempt about this, I agree with Mary that it would be nice to know how and why this being done...
Bill
-----<Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote: -----
======================= To: <council@gnso.icann.org> From: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Date: 02/10/2012 10:52PM Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened ======================= Maybe I'm just sleep-deprived, but I was wondering when, whether and how ICANN decides to open public comment periods on ostensibly non-policy issues and recommendations (as this one seems to be).
While I think it will be helpful to get public and open information about the source of the perception that trademark owners feel the need to defensively register at the top level, and it will certainly be useful to get more suggestions as to how ICANN can better communicate to trademark holders the current protections available (including the option of a Legal Rights Objection process), I'm curious as to: (1) what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common) soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy matters.
More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done?
(OTOH if this comment period relates to a policy matter that might lead to Board consideration or adoption of new measures per the Bylaws, that opens a whole other set of issues and questions ... !)
I'm curious also as to what other Councilors and/or your constituents think.
Thanks, Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>>
From: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@icann.org> To:"council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 2/10/2012 10:50 AM Subject: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06feb12-en.htm
Defensive Applications for New gTLDs
Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 6 February 2012
Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains
Purpose (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 -06feb12-en.htm
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Thanks Liz for the input. I would agree with Jeff here -- comment periods for little apparent or unjustified reasons are not just a time problem, they are indicative of further freelancing of possible policy establishment outside what the community should reasonably be able to count on. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Mon 2/13/2012 9:42 AM To: Liz Gasster; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org; David Olive Subject: RE: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened To the extent that this involves policy related to the gTLDs, yes I believe this is something that should be discussed with the community (not just the council). It is hard enough to keep up with the public comment periods that we know about (or that we know will be coming), but then to be expected to comment on additional items that come up randomly at the decision of ICANN staff is too much to ask. This is especially the case where if we do not have time to respond, ICANN staff/Board will tell the world "We had a public comment period, and no one responded....and therefore (a) the public is not concerned, (b) the direction ICANN is headed is right, or (c) there really is not an issue." Although one of those conclusions may be right, it is also possible that none of them are right. The point being is that we should not have random public comment periods thrown up by ICANN staff unless there is some clear concrete objective criteria for utilizing the public comment period and that criteria is followed. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 12:34 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO; David Olive Subject: RE: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened Stéphane, Mary, are these the questions you would like addressed by staff? I'm curious as to: (1)
what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common) soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy matters.
More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done?
The policy staff can answer questions about specific policy-related public comment periods. I will direct your question about this specific comment period to the appropriate staff, and follow up for a response. Regarding the ATRT requirements, this was implemented, and every 6 months the staff polls the SO and AC chairs and the Councils to ask about anticipated comment periods. We have never received a response from any Council members that I know of so staff submits what we know or expect is coming up, without prioritization. Filiz Yilmaz is the staff person who worked on these changes in conjunction with the community. Your broader question might be something the Council should discuss to the degree this is a shared concern, and I would be glad to include Filiz in those discussions. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 2:09 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO; David Olive Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened Can someone from the policy staff address Mary's question please? Stéphane Le 12 févr. 2012 à 21:14, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
It surprised me, too, to read such a request for public comment. It looks like ICANN being faced now with a never expected reaction - although that has been discussed extensively before the window opening. Learning by doing is the most effective (sometimes not efficient) way.
Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von william.drake@uzh.ch Gesendet: Sonntag, 12. Februar 2012 12:34 An: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened
While I'm not particularly verklempt about this, I agree with Mary that it would be nice to know how and why this being done...
Bill
-----<Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote: -----
======================= To: <council@gnso.icann.org> From: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Date: 02/10/2012 10:52PM Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened ======================= Maybe I'm just sleep-deprived, but I was wondering when, whether and how ICANN decides to open public comment periods on ostensibly non-policy issues and recommendations (as this one seems to be).
While I think it will be helpful to get public and open information about the source of the perception that trademark owners feel the need to defensively register at the top level, and it will certainly be useful to get more suggestions as to how ICANN can better communicate to trademark holders the current protections available (including the option of a Legal Rights Objection process), I'm curious as to: (1) what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common) soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy matters.
More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done?
(OTOH if this comment period relates to a policy matter that might lead to Board consideration or adoption of new measures per the Bylaws, that opens a whole other set of issues and questions ... !)
I'm curious also as to what other Councilors and/or your constituents think.
Thanks, Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>>
From: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@icann.org> To:"council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 2/10/2012 10:50 AM Subject: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06feb12-en.htm
Defensive Applications for New gTLDs
Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 6 February 2012
Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains
Purpose (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 -06feb12-en.htm
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Yes, thank you, Liz - I appreciate the explanation but, like Jeff and Mason, remain concerned about how the decisions as to what comment periods are to be launched are made in the absence either of community input or direct motion. For this particular instance, and after a bit of digging around, I think it may be at least in part due to a January 4, 2012 letter sent by Asst. Secretary Strickling to Steve Crocker/the ICANN Board (link attached: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_...). Two of the three main points raised in the letter parallel much of the request for comment (i.e. finding out more about top level defensive registration concerns and engaging directly with stakeholders about the program); the third is interesting for explicitly stating that NTIA will work with the community and, specifically, the GAC to determine if additional protections are warranted at the second level. Quite aside from the specific question I raised about process, this is perhaps something that the GNSO should be aware of, as any developments as a result seems to me to come particularly within our purview. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
From: "Mason Cole" <mcole@nameking.com> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster@icann.org>, Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <council@gnso.icann.org>, "David Olive" <david.olive@icann.org> Date: 2/19/2012 3:38 PM Subject: RE: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened Thanks Liz for the input. I would agree with Jeff here -- comment periods for little apparent or unjustified reasons are not just a time problem, they are indicative of further freelancing of possible policy establishment outside what the community should reasonably be able to count on. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Mon 2/13/2012 9:42 AM To: Liz Gasster; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org; David Olive Subject: RE: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened To the extent that this involves policy related to the gTLDs, yes I believe this is something that should be discussed with the community (not just the council). It is hard enough to keep up with the public comment periods that we know about (or that we know will be coming), but then to be expected to comment on additional items that come up randomly at the decision of ICANN staff is too much to ask. This is especially the case where if we do not have time to respond, ICANN staff/Board will tell the world "We had a public comment period, and no one responded....and therefore (a) the public is not concerned, (b) the direction ICANN is headed is right, or (c) there really is not an issue." Although one of those conclusions may be right, it is also possible that none of them are right. The point being is that we should not have random public comment periods thrown up by ICANN staff unless there is some clear concrete objective criteria for utilizing the public comment period and that criteria is followed. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 12:34 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO; David Olive Subject: RE: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened Stéphane, Mary, are these the questions you would like addressed by staff? I'm curious as to: (1)
what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common) soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy matters.
More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done?
The policy staff can answer questions about specific policy-related public comment periods. I will direct your question about this specific comment period to the appropriate staff, and follow up for a response. Regarding the ATRT requirements, this was implemented, and every 6 months the staff polls the SO and AC chairs and the Councils to ask about anticipated comment periods. We have never received a response from any Council members that I know of so staff submits what we know or expect is coming up, without prioritization. Filiz Yilmaz is the staff person who worked on these changes in conjunction with the community. Your broader question might be something the Council should discuss to the degree this is a shared concern, and I would be glad to include Filiz in those discussions. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 2:09 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO; David Olive Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened Can someone from the policy staff address Mary's question please? Stéphane Le 12 févr. 2012 à 21:14, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
It surprised me, too, to read such a request for public comment. It
looks like ICANN being faced now with a never expected reaction - although that has been discussed extensively before the window opening. Learning by doing is the most effective (sometimes not efficient) way.
Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von william.drake@uzh.ch Gesendet: Sonntag, 12. Februar 2012 12:34 An: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened
While I'm not particularly verklempt about this, I agree with Mary
that it would be nice to know how and why this being done...
Bill
-----<Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote: -----
======================= To: <council@gnso.icann.org> From: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Date: 02/10/2012 10:52PM Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs -
public
comment period opened ======================= Maybe I'm just sleep-deprived, but I was wondering when, whether and how ICANN decides to open public comment periods on ostensibly non-policy issues and recommendations (as this one seems to be).
While I think it will be helpful to get public and open information about the source of the perception that trademark owners feel the need to defensively register at the top level, and it will certainly be useful to get more suggestions as to how ICANN can better communicate to trademark holders the current protections available (including the option of a Legal Rights Objection process), I'm curious as to: (1) what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common) soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy matters.
More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done?
(OTOH if this comment period relates to a policy matter that might lead to Board consideration or adoption of new measures per the Bylaws, that opens a whole other set of issues and questions ... !)
I'm curious also as to what other Councilors and/or your constituents think.
Thanks, Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>>
From: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@icann.org> To:"council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 2/10/2012 10:50 AM Subject: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06feb12-en.htm
Defensive Applications for New gTLDs
Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 6 February 2012
Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains
Purpose (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
-06feb12-en.htm
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Hello all, I still have on my to-do list to provide you with any additional insights on the genesis of this particular comment period, and I am following up with relevant staff to do so. In addition , on the broader question of public comment periods more generally, I would like to share that I discussed your concern with Filiz Yilmaz, ICANN's senior director of participation. She too reiterated her appreciation for the fact that the current system is new and of course can be improved further. She noted that recent changes were made (with extensive community consultation) and that further refinements may certainly be warranted. And she is very eager to hear of any specific suggestions regarding the new system. Importantly, Filiz pointed out that in addition, further fundamental changes (beyond changes that have been recently worked out already together with the community) would require similar kind of consensus building with the community. As I understand it, the ICANN Board's Public Participation Committee (PPC) will hold a consultation session on 15 March 2012, Thursday (9:00 am -10:30 am), during the Costa Rica Meeting, and one of the topics will be enhancements to the public comments process. There will be the opportunity to provide input during this session. Best regards, Liz From: Mason Cole [mailto:mcole@nameking.com] Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 12:32 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; Liz Gasster; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org; David Olive Subject: RE: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened Thanks Liz for the input. I would agree with Jeff here -- comment periods for little apparent or unjustified reasons are not just a time problem, they are indicative of further freelancing of possible policy establishment outside what the community should reasonably be able to count on. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Mon 2/13/2012 9:42 AM To: Liz Gasster; Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>; David Olive Subject: RE: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened To the extent that this involves policy related to the gTLDs, yes I believe this is something that should be discussed with the community (not just the council). It is hard enough to keep up with the public comment periods that we know about (or that we know will be coming), but then to be expected to comment on additional items that come up randomly at the decision of ICANN staff is too much to ask. This is especially the case where if we do not have time to respond, ICANN staff/Board will tell the world "We had a public comment period, and no one responded....and therefore (a) the public is not concerned, (b) the direction ICANN is headed is right, or (c) there really is not an issue." Although one of those conclusions may be right, it is also possible that none of them are right. The point being is that we should not have random public comment periods thrown up by ICANN staff unless there is some clear concrete objective criteria for utilizing the public comment period and that criteria is followed. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 12:34 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO; David Olive Subject: RE: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened Stéphane, Mary, are these the questions you would like addressed by staff? I'm curious as to: (1)
what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common) soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy matters.
More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done?
The policy staff can answer questions about specific policy-related public comment periods. I will direct your question about this specific comment period to the appropriate staff, and follow up for a response. Regarding the ATRT requirements, this was implemented, and every 6 months the staff polls the SO and AC chairs and the Councils to ask about anticipated comment periods. We have never received a response from any Council members that I know of so staff submits what we know or expect is coming up, without prioritization. Filiz Yilmaz is the staff person who worked on these changes in conjunction with the community. Your broader question might be something the Council should discuss to the degree this is a shared concern, and I would be glad to include Filiz in those discussions. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 2:09 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> GNSO; David Olive Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened Can someone from the policy staff address Mary's question please? Stéphane Le 12 févr. 2012 à 21:14, <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> a écrit :
It surprised me, too, to read such a request for public comment. It looks like ICANN being faced now with a never expected reaction - although that has been discussed extensively before the window opening. Learning by doing is the most effective (sometimes not efficient) way.
Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von william.drake@uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch> Gesendet: Sonntag, 12. Februar 2012 12:34 An: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Betreff: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened
While I'm not particularly verklempt about this, I agree with Mary that it would be nice to know how and why this being done...
Bill
-----<Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>> wrote: -----
======================= To: <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> From: <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>> Date: 02/10/2012 10:52PM Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened ======================= Maybe I'm just sleep-deprived, but I was wondering when, whether and how ICANN decides to open public comment periods on ostensibly non-policy issues and recommendations (as this one seems to be).
While I think it will be helpful to get public and open information about the source of the perception that trademark owners feel the need to defensively register at the top level, and it will certainly be useful to get more suggestions as to how ICANN can better communicate to trademark holders the current protections available (including the option of a Legal Rights Objection process), I'm curious as to: (1) what prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common) soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy matters.
More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN staff comment on how this is done?
(OTOH if this comment period relates to a policy matter that might lead to Board consideration or adoption of new measures per the Bylaws, that opens a whole other set of issues and questions ... !)
I'm curious also as to what other Councilors and/or your constituents think.
Thanks, Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone<mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone>: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>>
From: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> To:"council@gnso.icann.org GNSO<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org%0b%3e%20GNSO>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Date: 2/10/2012 10:50 AM Subject: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06feb12-en.htm
Defensive Applications for New gTLDs
Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 6 February 2012
Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains
Purpose (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 -06feb12-en.htm
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org
participants (8)
-
Glen de Saint Géry -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Liz Gasster -
Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu -
Mason Cole -
Neuman, Jeff -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
william.drake＠uzh.ch