-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tobias, all, I am more than happy to explain. The author wrote about generic terms that have been entered into the TMCH for the purpose of registering domain names during the sunrise period. I confirmed that a lot of trademarks have been applied for with the obvious intention to game the system by adding additional elements to the generic term or by registering the trademarks for unrelated classes of goods and services. The issue woud not have arisen - at least to that extent - if the original idea of a cut-off date, which was the day or the day before the board decision on the new gTLD program was taken in Paris, would have made its way to the final version of the AGB. The cut-off date is sill there, but now it only applies to treaty-based protection. This seems to be a drafting error, but the result is that we are now facing a situation where only Governments are prevented from gaming the system by creating treaties for the purpose of domain grabbing :-). Best, Thomas Am 10.09.2014 um 20:32 schrieb Tobias Sattler:
I would also raise another point: Reviewing TMCH.
There is a good German article covering it http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Das-Trademark-Clearinghouse-und-die-n...
For the non-German speakers; The article says that there are quite a number of new trademarks in the TMCH like “taxi”, “sex”, “auto”, “immobilen”, “cloud”, “bank”, “villa”, “blog”, “golf” and “party”.
These trademarks are mostly "word and design mark” and if you look up for instance the trademark “immobilen” at the Austrian patent office it says "?I?M?M?O?B?I?L?I?E?N?”.
The whole TMCH thing is quite hard to communicate to customers and we experienced that most of our customers are dropping out because of a claim notice. Well, you can argue that in both ways, but if the TMCH get “gamed” like that I don’t want to imagine how things will evolve in subsequents rounds.
Thomas Rickert, who is also part of this discussion group, may explain it a bitter better than I do. (sorry Thomas to put you on the spot)
Tobias
On 08.09.2014, at 15:05, Tobias Sattler <sattler@united-domains.de <mailto:sattler@united-domains.de>> wrote:
Dear Steve,
I would also like to add some points from our point of view:
1.) Usage of AROS (Automated Registrar Onboarding System)
2.) “Standardization” of Registry Registrar Agreements. I wouldn’t go that far to say all RRA’s have to be the same, but it would help if they would be more similar.
3.) Reviewing Premium-Names, there are currently to many different ways of selling and maintaining them.
4.) Reviewing “Highly regulated TLDs”, how they should be handled.
5.) Reviewing Name Collision, it is a pain to explain to customers.
6.) More transparency in contracting (NDA’s, signed RRA, side letters, etc.). I doubt that every registrar has the same RRA signed and NDA’s are floating around before you actually get the RRA, etc.
Best regards, Tobias
On 03.09.2014, at 00:19, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear DG Members,
This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace (https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf).
Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not
preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC.
Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.
Best,
*Steven Chan* Sr. Policy Manager
*ICANN *12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUEWrnAAoJECGcZEVUvnjeqWIIAIyibieJqOfF1gBYq7cdx8La V/g+Th2Tqe5a12itGpb/OorS85FwR1IXr1/xd63Uyd4h2siw+faCITEnArqrriNV HaHhlAvO4jXWzWQQ0MOaF2n+4kSY2vFrHmxWC0oPUHjx+gJvzYH7jKK/gw97JpiS bjjkIWe8SxlBWSfT3is6+dMeIqqr0Zq2yGgE79FdTn316Ph2ahqGzPVqZoMUDb2N JFOqxc5vnVbXbhXKE7n9VCEP3Cb4eGH41KxXUy3vceVvnCOLFY+3yLcQatGri5LU G45to70Wyt6hD4wKcUL1Sb1YLS4n2SGpVqT4/S770QxFX+vS88sbiZCSujQRFP8= =kJkr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----