All, A reminder that this item is on our agenda for discussion next week. I believe that we need to respond to Fadi in as constructive, well-considered and comprehensive a manner as possible. Therefore, please can you personally consider the letter, the issues it raises and ensure that these are discussed with your respective groups so that you are in a position to discuss the Council’s response. Any contributions to the list in advance of December 20th most welcome. Noting: “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” And “… 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)” Thank-you. 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-mee...), 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
Dear Jonathan, I believe I have already clarified my position on these proposals. This position has been further supported by a review of preceeding policy decisions on these matters which have shown that not only are these mostly matters of policy but also that the demands proposed by the strawman are to a very large degree in direct contradiction to previous policy decisions. It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom meetings and rather rely on its established processes. If that means that these proposals will not be ready for prime-time at the time of the launch of the new TLDs, so be it. I cannot in my best consciousness support caving in to speciality interests to the detriment of the community of the whole, of registries, registrars and registrants. Best, Volker
All,
A reminder that this item is on our agenda for discussion next week. I believe that we need to respond to Fadi in as constructive, well-considered and comprehensive a manner as possible.
Therefore, please can you personally consider the letter, the issues it raises and ensure that these are discussed with your respective groups so that you are in a position to discuss the Council’s response.
Any contributions to the list in advance of December 20^th most welcome.
Noting:
“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_”
And
“… 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)”
Thank-you.
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-mee...), 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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Thank-you Volker, I believe my job as chair is to ensure that the issues are raised, given a fair hearing and then that an accurate view of the Council position or positions is effectively communicated. Your input is clearly helpful in getting to that point. Especially since you sound like you have done your homework in looking back on previous consideration of these issues. Others, please chime in. Especially with regard to any of the specifics where you may feel we can respond to Fadi. Jonathan From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: 12 December 2012 17:20 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH) Dear Jonathan, I believe I have already clarified my position on these proposals. This position has been further supported by a review of preceeding policy decisions on these matters which have shown that not only are these mostly matters of policy but also that the demands proposed by the strawman are to a very large degree in direct contradiction to previous policy decisions. It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom meetings and rather rely on its established processes. If that means that these proposals will not be ready for prime-time at the time of the launch of the new TLDs, so be it. I cannot in my best consciousness support caving in to speciality interests to the detriment of the community of the whole, of registries, registrars and registrants. Best, Volker All, A reminder that this item is on our agenda for discussion next week. I believe that we need to respond to Fadi in as constructive, well-considered and comprehensive a manner as possible. Therefore, please can you personally consider the letter, the issues it raises and ensure that these are discussed with your respective groups so that you are in a position to discuss the Council’s response. Any contributions to the list in advance of December 20th most welcome. Noting: “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” And “… 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)” Thank-you. 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-mee...), 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
I agree with Volker:
It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom meetings and rather rely on its established processes.
--Wendy On 12/12/2012 12:47 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Thank-you Volker,
I believe my job as chair is to ensure that the issues are raised, given a fair hearing and then that an accurate view of the Council position or positions is effectively communicated.
Your input is clearly helpful in getting to that point. Especially since you sound like you have done your homework in looking back on previous consideration of these issues.
Others, please chime in. Especially with regard to any of the specifics where you may feel we can respond to Fadi.
Jonathan
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: 12 December 2012 17:20 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH)
Dear Jonathan,
I believe I have already clarified my position on these proposals. This position has been further supported by a review of preceeding policy decisions on these matters which have shown that not only are these mostly matters of policy but also that the demands proposed by the strawman are to a very large degree in direct contradiction to previous policy decisions.
It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom meetings and rather rely on its established processes.
If that means that these proposals will not be ready for prime-time at the time of the launch of the new TLDs, so be it. I cannot in my best consciousness support caving in to speciality interests to the detriment of the community of the whole, of registries, registrars and registrants.
Best,
Volker
All,
A reminder that this item is on our agenda for discussion next week. I believe that we need to respond to Fadi in as constructive, well-considered and comprehensive a manner as possible.
Therefore, please can you personally consider the letter, the issues it raises and ensure that these are discussed with your respective groups so that you are in a position to discuss the Council’s response.
Any contributions to the list in advance of December 20th most welcome.
Noting:
“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”
And
“… 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)”
Thank-you.
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-mee...), 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
Yes, obviously I agree with Volker. That is the position of the registrars. I look forward to the discussion on a reply. On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I agree with Volker:
It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom meetings and rather rely on its established processes.
--Wendy
On 12/12/2012 12:47 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Thank-you Volker,
I believe my job as chair is to ensure that the issues are raised, given a fair hearing and then that an accurate view of the Council position or positions is effectively communicated.
Your input is clearly helpful in getting to that point. Especially since you sound like you have done your homework in looking back on previous consideration of these issues.
Others, please chime in. Especially with regard to any of the specifics where you may feel we can respond to Fadi.
Jonathan
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: 12 December 2012 17:20 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH)
Dear Jonathan,
I believe I have already clarified my position on these proposals. This position has been further supported by a review of preceeding policy decisions on these matters which have shown that not only are these mostly matters of policy but also that the demands proposed by the strawman are to a very large degree in direct contradiction to previous policy decisions.
It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom meetings and rather rely on its established processes.
If that means that these proposals will not be ready for prime-time at the time of the launch of the new TLDs, so be it. I cannot in my best consciousness support caving in to speciality interests to the detriment of the community of the whole, of registries, registrars and registrants.
Best,
Volker
All,
A reminder that this item is on our agenda for discussion next week. I believe that we need to respond to Fadi in as constructive, well-considered and comprehensive a manner as possible.
Therefore, please can you personally consider the letter, the issues it raises and ensure that these are discussed with your respective groups so that you are in a position to discuss the Council’s response.
Any contributions to the list in advance of December 20th most welcome.
Noting:
“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”
And
“… 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)”
Thank-you.
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-mee...), 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks Jonathan and Volker. I also support the position of referring back to earlier policy decisions and the rejection of proposals that do not follow proper policy making processes. Given that the IP constituency has had a considerable hand in driving these issues (particularly of late), the professional courtesy of their open and honest engagement with Council discussion on this list would be appreciated. Joy On 13/12/2012 7:57 a.m., Mason Cole wrote:
Yes, obviously I agree with Volker. That is the position of the registrars. I look forward to the discussion on a reply.
On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I agree with Volker:
It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom meetings and rather rely on its established processes.
--Wendy
On 12/12/2012 12:47 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Thank-you Volker,
I believe my job as chair is to ensure that the issues are raised, given a fair hearing and then that an accurate view of the Council position or positions is effectively communicated.
Your input is clearly helpful in getting to that point. Especially since you sound like you have done your homework in looking back on previous consideration of these issues.
Others, please chime in. Especially with regard to any of the specifics where you may feel we can respond to Fadi.
Jonathan
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: 12 December 2012 17:20 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH)
Dear Jonathan,
I believe I have already clarified my position on these proposals. This position has been further supported by a review of preceeding policy decisions on these matters which have shown that not only are these mostly matters of policy but also that the demands proposed by the strawman are to a very large degree in direct contradiction to previous policy decisions.
It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom meetings and rather rely on its established processes.
If that means that these proposals will not be ready for prime-time at the time of the launch of the new TLDs, so be it. I cannot in my best consciousness support caving in to speciality interests to the detriment of the community of the whole, of registries, registrars and registrants.
Best,
Volker
All,
A reminder that this item is on our agenda for discussion next week. I believe that we need to respond to Fadi in as constructive, well-considered and comprehensive a manner as possible.
Therefore, please can you personally consider the letter, the issues it raises and ensure that these are discussed with your respective groups so that you are in a position to discuss the Council’s response.
Any contributions to the list in advance of December 20th most welcome.
Noting:
“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”
And
“… 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)”
Thank-you.
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-mee...),
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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQykFpAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqid8H/jEBXm5vHfv5l/bNGHPRurLI OpNkarSLw+zns4snUxcjQDcWvJEObB6Fe2iMuxkqgdIuYFw6KSfpJyI3xAvO8wj0 emmcOLHTWUHGx9VQaxVEwN6i9fA/zJkEaFj6AK9N+771j3kbiIH7v1agx3mntYTU hXgbSo6keP23hTGhZOHGxGIcon+p7rBhp8UjymeRNVSVjX7pKT5emw8Cf9L4dWGU S2bNpsrhBOTsl4SxGjHEq0lBIqCdz6ylVy9Don33g+Tw1zJIj3XkrvYZwxZFQmWI bjX3iThXOjl7Y6EWszmEJgC9l/I5krU31bAlcLHawApj/4zpSGk+hQ7176Uyax0= =XFwk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I also support Volker's position. Maria On 13 December 2012 20:58, joy <joy@apc.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thanks Jonathan and Volker. I also support the position of referring back to earlier policy decisions and the rejection of proposals that do not follow proper policy making processes. Given that the IP constituency has had a considerable hand in driving these issues (particularly of late), the professional courtesy of their open and honest engagement with Council discussion on this list would be appreciated.
Joy
On 13/12/2012 7:57 a.m., Mason Cole wrote:
Yes, obviously I agree with Volker. That is the position of the registrars. I look forward to the discussion on a reply.
On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I agree with Volker:
It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom meetings and rather rely on its established processes.
--Wendy
On 12/12/2012 12:47 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Thank-you Volker,
I believe my job as chair is to ensure that the issues are raised, given a fair hearing and then that an accurate view of the Council position or positions is effectively communicated.
Your input is clearly helpful in getting to that point. Especially since you sound like you have done your homework in looking back on previous consideration of these issues.
Others, please chime in. Especially with regard to any of the specifics where you may feel we can respond to Fadi.
Jonathan
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: 12 December 2012 17:20 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH)
Dear Jonathan,
I believe I have already clarified my position on these proposals. This position has been further supported by a review of preceeding policy decisions on these matters which have shown that not only are these mostly matters of policy but also that the demands proposed by the strawman are to a very large degree in direct contradiction to previous policy decisions.
It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom meetings and rather rely on its established processes.
If that means that these proposals will not be ready for prime-time at the time of the launch of the new TLDs, so be it. I cannot in my best consciousness support caving in to speciality interests to the detriment of the community of the whole, of registries, registrars and registrants.
Best,
Volker
All,
A reminder that this item is on our agenda for discussion next week. I believe that we need to respond to Fadi in as constructive, well-considered and comprehensive a manner as possible.
Therefore, please can you personally consider the letter, the issues it raises and ensure that these are discussed with your respective groups so that you are in a position to discuss the Council’s response.
Any contributions to the list in advance of December 20th most welcome.
Noting:
“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”
And
“… 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)”
Thank-you.
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-mee... ), 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQykFpAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqid8H/jEBXm5vHfv5l/bNGHPRurLI OpNkarSLw+zns4snUxcjQDcWvJEObB6Fe2iMuxkqgdIuYFw6KSfpJyI3xAvO8wj0 emmcOLHTWUHGx9VQaxVEwN6i9fA/zJkEaFj6AK9N+771j3kbiIH7v1agx3mntYTU hXgbSo6keP23hTGhZOHGxGIcon+p7rBhp8UjymeRNVSVjX7pKT5emw8Cf9L4dWGU S2bNpsrhBOTsl4SxGjHEq0lBIqCdz6ylVy9Don33g+Tw1zJIj3XkrvYZwxZFQmWI bjX3iThXOjl7Y6EWszmEJgC9l/I5krU31bAlcLHawApj/4zpSGk+hQ7176Uyax0= =XFwk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Volker, I don't totally agree with your position, I think that some of the changes proposed in the Strawman Solution for the TMCH are clearly implementation and not policy. As an example, adding a 30-day notice period in advanced to the Sunrise Period doesn't change the original proposed approach for the Sunrise Period or its results. Also, extending to 90 days the Trademark Claims period doesn't seem as a policy change. For me these changes are just implementation changes. The rest of the proposal does look as policy changes and in that regard a totally share your position. This doesn't mean that I don't support the proposal; I think it has lots of merit but should go through the established processes. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa ________________________________ De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Volker Greimann Enviado el: Miércoles, 12 de Diciembre de 2012 15:20 Para: Jonathan Robinson CC: council@gnso.icann.org Asunto: Re: [council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH) Dear Jonathan, I believe I have already clarified my position on these proposals. This position has been further supported by a review of preceeding policy decisions on these matters which have shown that not only are these mostly matters of policy but also that the demands proposed by the strawman are to a very large degree in direct contradiction to previous policy decisions. It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom meetings and rather rely on its established processes. If that means that these proposals will not be ready for prime-time at the time of the launch of the new TLDs, so be it. I cannot in my best consciousness support caving in to speciality interests to the detriment of the community of the whole, of registries, registrars and registrants. Best, Volker All, A reminder that this item is on our agenda for discussion next week. I believe that we need to respond to Fadi in as constructive, well-considered and comprehensive a manner as possible. Therefore, please can you personally consider the letter, the issues it raises and ensure that these are discussed with your respective groups so that you are in a position to discuss the Council's response. Any contributions to the list in advance of December 20th most welcome. Noting: "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" And "... 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)" Thank-you. 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-mee...), 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
Hi Osvaldo, I think if anything is salvageable from this strawman proposal is the notice period prior to the sunrise. It makes sense from multiple perspectives and not only benefits one community. I agree that this would mostly be implementation rather than policy, contrary to the remainder of the demands, which are policy and contrary to prior to that the community had agreed to as the maximum possible compromise prosition. Best regards, Volker
Volker,
I don't totally agree with your position, I think that some of the changes proposed in the Strawman Solution for the TMCH are clearly implementation and not policy. As an example, adding a 30-day notice period in advanced to the Sunrise Period doesn't change the original proposed approach for the Sunrise Period or its results. Also, extending to 90 days the Trademark Claims period doesn't seem as a policy change. For me these changes are just implementation changes.
The rest of the proposal does look as policy changes and in that regard a totally share your position.
This doesn't mean that I don't support the proposal; I think it has lots of merit but should go through the established processes.
Best regards,
Osvaldo Novoa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *En nombre de *Volker Greimann *Enviado el:* Miércoles, 12 de Diciembre de 2012 15:20 *Para:* Jonathan Robinson *CC:* council@gnso.icann.org *Asunto:* Re: [council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH)
Dear Jonathan,
I believe I have already clarified my position on these proposals. This position has been further supported by a review of preceeding policy decisions on these matters which have shown that not only are these mostly matters of policy but also that the demands proposed by the strawman are to a very large degree in direct contradiction to previous policy decisions.
It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom meetings and rather rely on its established processes.
If that means that these proposals will not be ready for prime-time at the time of the launch of the new TLDs, so be it. I cannot in my best consciousness support caving in to speciality interests to the detriment of the community of the whole, of registries, registrars and registrants.
Best,
Volker
All,
A reminder that this item is on our agenda for discussion next week. I believe that we need to respond to Fadi in as constructive, well-considered and comprehensive a manner as possible.
Therefore, please can you personally consider the letter, the issues it raises and ensure that these are discussed with your respective groups so that you are in a position to discuss the Council's response.
Any contributions to the list in advance of December 20^th most welcome.
Noting:
"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_"
And
"... 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)"
Thank-you.
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-mee...), 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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información
This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
participants (7)
-
Jonathan Robinson -
joy -
Maria Farrell -
Mason Cole -
Novoa, Osvaldo -
Volker Greimann -
Wendy Seltzer