May 2013 - IDN-WG - lists.icann.org

Re: [IDN-WG] [APAC-Discuss] [ALAC] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
by Alan Greenberg May 12, 2013

May 12, 2013

Note that the TMCH has two separate components. The backend and the interface with registries is, I believe, a single database and is being run under contract to ICANN by IBM. The interface to TM holders and the validation service is contracted to Deloitte. The design explicitly allows for distributed user interfaces and validation services to ensure proper handling of different languages, scripts and TM law. Alan At 23/04/2013 07:17 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Also agree with Yaovi on removing the word "centralized" >And thanks to Hong and Rinala for the work done on this statement. > >Dev Anand > >On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > +1 > > > > In any case, the opening of offices in Turkey and Singapore makes it hard > > to argue that ICANN isn't at least making an attempt to decentralize. > > > > (Please don't see my relative silence as lack of interest, but rather lack > > of depth in the issue) > > > > - Evan > > > > > > On 23 April 2013 14:19, Yaovi Atohoun <yaovito(a)yahoo.fr> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> In the statement we can read : > >> "... we strongly urge ICANN to move away from a model that is centralized, > >> inflexible and unfriendly to variants. " > >> > >> My question : Is is not possible to have a model that is centralized and > >> taking into account IDN variant issues? > >> If so my recommendation is to remove the word "Centralized" in the > >> sentence above. > >> > >> > >> Yaovi > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> De : JJS <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> > >> À : Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> > >> Cc : apralo <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; No name < > >> idn-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ALAC Working List < > >> alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> Envoyé le : Dimanche 21 avril 2013 4h11 > >> Objet : Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants > >> > >> > >> *Dear Rinalia,* > >> * > >> * > >> *you've done a very thorough job, thank you. * > >> *Below, my **suggested modifications in red.* > >> * > >> * > >> *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark > Clearinghouse and IDN Variants > >> * > >> > >> The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is deeply concerned by the > >> implementation model outlined in the Trademark Clearinghouse: Rights > >> Protection Mechanism Requirements published > on April 6, 2013. We view the > >> model to be deficient in that it overlooks the critical issue of IDN > >> variants; thus implemented, the model would clearly run against the public > >> interest in the pertinent > >> user communities.* > >> * > >> > >> *(1) Domain Name Matching* > >> > >> Language communities have requested that TMCH services factor IDN-script > >> trademarks involving variants and that ICANN consider adopting > >> community-based solutions to address this issue since October 2011. > >> Despite > >> concerns raised by language community experts in the TMCH Implementation > >> Assistance Group (IAG), the domain name matching requirements of the TMCH > >> still does not take into account trademarks in IDN scripts involving > >> variants. Variant matching is critical in certain languages and > >> particularly in Chinese. To illustrate, when a trademark > >> holder registers a simplified Chinese word-mark and not its traditional > >> equivalent, the TMCH will accordingly generate only one trademark record. > >> The > >> new gTLD registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and trademark > >> claims for trademarks recorded in the TMCH. Without variant matching > >> requirements in place, only that registered simplified word-mark will be > >> eligible for trademark protection. This leaves the traditional word-mark > >> equivalent open for cybersquatting. Given that both simplified and > >> traditional writings of the word-mark are deemed identical by Chinese > >> communities worldwide (and by norm few trademarks are registered in both > >> writings), > >> ruling out the un-registered writing by not > allowing variant matching would > >> make the TMCH completely useless to Chinese > trademarks, and would result in > >> an unfair penalty against users of Chinese. > >> > >> *A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model* > >> > >> Trademarks have a very important function in safeguarding the public > >> interest by > >> identifying the source of goods and services. > >> > >> *The rest seems fine.* > >> * > >> * > >> *Best regards,* > >> *Jean-Jacques.* > >> > >> > >> 2013/4/20 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> > >> > >> > Dear Members of the IDN WG, APRALO and ALAC Colleagues, > >> > > >> > I have revised the proposed " *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on > >> Trademark > >> > Clearinghouse and IDN Variants*" based on Hong's draft, input received > >> in > >> > Beijing and my own consultation with IDN Variant experts. > >> > > >> > Please review and comment on the draft on > the wiki for tracking purposes. > >> > The wiki page for the draft is here - > >> > > >> > > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+the+ICANN+… > >> > > >> > Once the text is deemed satisfactory, it will be forwarded to the ALAC > >> for > >> > a vote. Please try your best to respond with comments by Friday April > >> > 26th. > >> > > >> > Text pasted below for rapid review. The final version will be proofread > >> > and > >> > a summary of recommendations will be produced as part of the final > >> version > >> > (as per our norm in giving advice to the Board). > >> > > >> > Best regards, > >> > > >> > Rinalia > >> > > >> > *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark Clearinghouse and IDN > >> > Variants > >> > * > >> > > >> > The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is deeply concerned by the > >> > implementation model outlined in the Trademark Clearinghouse: Rights > >> > Protection Mechanism Requirements published on April 6, 2013. We view > >> the > >> > model to be deficient in that it overlooks the critical issue of IDN > >> > variants, which would seriously impact the public interest in the > >> pertinent > >> > user communities. > >> > > >> > We wish to highlight two areas of particular concern in the Trademark > >> > Clearinghouse (TMCH) requirements: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > *(1) Domain Name Matching* > >> > > >> > Language communities have requested that TMCH services factor IDN-script > >> > trademarks involving variants and that ICANN consider adopting > >> > community-based solutions to address this issue since October 2011. > >> > Despite > >> > concerns raised by language community experts in the TMCH Implementation > >> > Assistance Group (IAG), the domain name > matching requirements of the TMCH > >> > still does not take into account trademarks in IDN scripts involving > >> > variants. Variant matching is critical for certain languages and > >> > particularly for the Chinese language. To illustrate, when a trademark > >> > holder registers a simplified Chinese word-mark and not its traditional > >> > equivalent, the TMCH will accordingly > generate only one trademark record. > >> > The > >> > new gTLD registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and trademark > >> > claims for trademarks recorded in the TMCH. Without variant matching > >> > requirements in place, only that registered simplified word-mark will be > >> > eligible for trademark protection. This > leaves the traditional word-mark > >> > equivalent open for cybersquatting. Given that both simplified and > >> > traditional writings of the word-mark are > deemed identical by the Chinese > >> > community (and by norm few trademarks are registered in both writings), > >> > ruling out the un-registered writing by not allowing variant matching > >> would > >> > make the TMCH completely useless to Chinese trademarks. > >> > > >> > > >> > *(2) Domain Name Bundling* > >> > > >> > The TMCH requirements specifically prohibit any registry from > >> implementing > >> > variant or bundling rules and allocating domain names under such > >> variant > >> > or bundling rules prior to the conclusion > of the Sunrise Period. Such a > >> > restriction would exclude the accommodation of any solution for IDN > >> > trademarks involving variants during the > sunrise period at the TLD level, > >> > even though registries may be willing to address the variants through > >> their > >> > own registration management and at their own expense. > >> > > >> > *A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model* > >> > > >> > Trademarks have a very important function of safeguarding the public > >> > interest by > >> > identifying the source of goods and services. If left unaddressed, the > >> > deficiencies of the TMCH model design may likely cause serious public > >> > confusion and result in market chaos. In principle, the At-Large > >> community > >> > does not support over-extensive trademark protection measures. However, > >> we > >> > do strongly believe that ICANN should treat all trademarks equally, > >> > irrespective of the characters of the > trademarks, and that users from all > >> > language communities should be protected from confusion equally. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > In September 2012, the ALAC statement on > the TMCH called for a more open > >> > and flexible model that can address our communitys concerns regarding > >> the > >> > limitations of a uniform model, which would be applied to all gTLD > >> > registries irrespective of their differences and competencies. We > >> believe > >> > that new gTLD registries require a more open and flexible TMCH model to > >> be > >> > successful and we strongly urge ICANN to move away from a model that is > >> > centralized, inflexible and unfriendly to variants. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > In light of the considerations above, the ALAC urges the ICANN Board to > >> > call for a more open and flexible TMCH model. Towards this end, we urge > >> > the Board to support a community-based, bottom-up solution for TMCH > >> > implementation and to ensure that the IDN variant issue is addressed > >> before > >> > the TMCH begin providing services to the new gTLD registries. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > We understand that addressing the IDN Variant issue in a holistic way > >> > requires the development of Label Generation Rules (LGR) for the Root > >> Zone, > >> > which experts and Staff have projected to > require a minimum of 12 months. > >> > We > >> > appreciate that the LGR development requires conscientious effort to > >> > maintain the security and stability of the Internet, but we are also > >> > mindful that the business and practical requirements of new gTLD > >> > applicants, especially from developing economies, call for urgent > >> > implementation. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > To expedite the development of appropriate > solutions, the ALAC recommends > >> > that the Board request from the ICANN CEO an interim mechanism that can > >> > yield such solutions efficiently and on an urgent basis. This may > >> require > >> > additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities working in > >> > tandem with community members with relevant expertise. It may also > >> require > >> > a consideration of expediting the LGR process for the Han script. We > >> > understand that in the general case, the handling of variants is a > >> complex > >> > issue. However, for variant cases that are well defined and understood, > >> > such as the case of the Han script, ICANN should proceed on a fast-track > >> > basis to include variant support in the TMCH in time to accommodate the > >> > delegation of the appropriate TLDs. > >> > > >> > END > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > IDN-WG mailing list > >> > IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg > >> > > >> > IDN WG Wiki: > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ALAC mailing list > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >> > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >> ALAC Working Wiki: > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ALAC mailing list > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >> > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >> ALAC Working Wiki: > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Evan Leibovitch > > Toronto Canada > > > > Em: evan at telly dot org > > Sk: evanleibovitch > > Tw: el56 > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >_______________________________________________ >APAC-Discuss mailing list >APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > >Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

10 18

Fwd: Request for input and guidance by 1 July 2013
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 3, 2013

May 3, 2013

Dear IDN WG, please be so kind to find the attached correspondence requesting input and guidance from our community regarding the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs. Please be so kind to consider this request for advice carefully. I hope you'll be able to come to good conclusions that we can relay back to the requester of this information. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair CC: ALAC working List; At-Large Worldwide list -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Request for input and guidance by 1 July 2013 Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 11:59:11 -0700 From: Naela Sarras <naela.sarras(a)icann.org> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> CC: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>, Naela Sarras <naela.sarras(a)icann.org> Dear Olivier, Please find attached a letter from Cyrus Namazi, Vice President, DNS Industry Engagement regarding the ICANN Board request for the interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to provide any input and guidance they may have to be factored into the implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs by 1 July 203. Best regards, Naela Sarras Manager, IDN TLDs ICANN

1 0

Re: [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
by Hong Xue May 2, 2013

May 2, 2013

Dear All, Please find below my draft statement. I'd appreciate for your quick review and feedback. I was the drafter of the New gTLD WG Statement on TMCH. Shall we also forward the draft to that WG to make it a joint submission to ALAC? Best, Hong _________________________________________________ At-Large Statement on Trademark Clearinghouse and IDN Variants At-large community is very disappointed at the implementation model outlined by “Trademark Clearinghouse: Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements” (hereafter “Requirements’) published on April 6, 2013. Particularly, the model completely overlooks the critical issues of IDN variants with respect to trademark clearinghouse (TMCH) and as a result would seriously impact the public interest in the pertinent user communities. According to the Requirements, *matching domain name labels will be generated for each Trademark Record in accordance with the Trademark Clearinghouse’s domain name matching rules*. The matching rules at the TMCH obviously, however, fail to take into account the trademarks in IDN scripts involving variants, although the variant issues had been raised by the language community experts at the Implementation Assistant Group (IAG). Variant matching is actually critical for certain language communities. Take Chinese for example, where a trademark holder merely registers a simplified word-mark but not its traditional equivalence, there will only be one trademark record generated in the TMCH. Since the new gTLD registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and trademark claims for the trademarks recorded in the TMCH, only that simplified word-mark will be eligible for sunrise registration and trademark claim services and leaves the traditional equivalence open for cybersquatting. Since both writings of the word-mark are deemed identical in the Chinese community and few trademarks are registered in both writings, ruling out the un-registered writing would make TMCH completely useless to Chinese trademarks. What is even more striking is that the Requirements specifically prohibits any registry from implementing *variant or bundling rules* and allocating domain names *under such variant or bundling rules prior to the conclusionof the Sunrise Period. * Such restriction actually excludes any solution for IDN trademarks involving variants to be accommodated in the sunrise period at the TLD level, even though a registry is willing fix the variants through its registration management and at its own costs. Trademarks have very important function of safeguarding public interests by identifying the source of goods or services. The malfunctioned TMCH design would cause serious public confusion and market chaos. Although at-large community never supports over-extensive trademark measures, ICANN should treat all the trademarks equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademarks, and protect the users in all language communities from confusion equally. At-Large community has made the statement on the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) in September 2012, in which at-large community concerns that the design of TMCH model that uniformly applies to all the gTLD registries, irrespective of their difference, may not provide the tailored services that are really needed by the new gTLD registries. At-large community suggested that “more open and flexible model deserves further exploration.” The Chinese Internet user community, dating back to October 2011, suggested that IDN-script trademarks involving variants should be taken into account in the TMCH services and ICANN consider adopting community-based solution to address this issue. Many other language communities shared the views of Chinese community. Unfortunately, ICANN has been deaf to the user community’s feedback and inputs and moves steadily toward the centralized, inflexible and variants-unfriendly TMCH. At-large community, therefore, strongly suggests that ICANN support community-based TLD-bottom-up solution for TMCH implementation and address the IDN variant issue before TMCH provides the services to the new gTLD registries. -- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China

8 17