Well, the fact that the TMCH will need some reform is pretty much obvious by now. A system that was once intended to protect the rights of a narrow select group has now become a tool for widespread abuse. Items that would have to be addressed prior to  future rounds:

- Widespread customer confusion caused by the pre-registration claims notice requirement - Suggested solution: Dropping this as a requirement for registration
- Abuse of TMCH protection mechanism for generic term reservation - Suggested solution: Tougher requirements to get into the TMCH as well as to get the entries renewed. Terms that are generic should be excluded from TMCH protection. So should other types of entries clearly designed to game the system.

Volker

Am 10.09.2014 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-neuen-Domains-Ein-Paradies-fuer-Markentrolle-2384866.html

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> 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> 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

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
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

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list
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