Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) and | Call for Comments | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open |
|---|
Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15.01.2013 | Trademark Clearinghouse "Strawman Solution" |
| Adopted 14Y, 0N, 1A |
|
| 05.01.2013 | 10.01.2013 | 10.01.2013 | 10.01.2013 | 14.01.2013 | 15.01.2013 12:00 UTC | 15.01.2013 | Karen Lentz karen.lentz@icann.org |
| AL/ALAC/ST/0113/1 |
| Comment/Reply Periods (*) | Important Information Links | |||
| Comment Open: | 30 November 2012 | |||
| Comment Close: | ||||
| Close Time (UTC): | 23:59 UTC | Public Comment Announcement | ||
| Reply Open: | To Submit Your Comments (Forum) | |||
| Reply Close: | View Comments Submitted | |||
| Close Time (UTC): | 23:59 UTC | Report of Public Comments | ||
| Brief Overview | ||||
| Originating Organization: | ICANN Staff | |||
| Categories/Tags: |
| |||
| Purpose (Brief): | The Trademark Clearinghouse facilitates the protection of trademark rights during the initial allocation and registration periods for domain names in new generic top level domains (new gTLDs). All new gTLD registries will be required to use Clearinghouse data to ensure that a set of mandatory trademark rights protection mechanisms are applied to all new domain registrations occurring in at least the first 90 days of domain registration. Following discussions at the Toronto meeting, ICANN met with a group of stakeholder representatives to complete implementation discussions on the Trademark Clearinghouse and its associated rights protection mechanisms. Among other subjects, these implementation meetings addressed the recent IPC/BC proposal for Improvements and Enhancements to the RPMs for new gTLDs [PDF, 68 KB]. Out of discussions evaluating the merits of these recommendations, the group produced at a strawman solution to address the concerns of affected stakeholders. This strawman solution is being posted for public comment. One element of the IPC/BC proposal that was not included in the strawman solution concerned a proposal for a "Limited Preventative Registration" mechanism, which attempts to address concerns related to solutions to the second level defensive registration issue that did not achieve consensus among the participants in the implementation meetings. Although this revised proposal is not included in the strawman solution, this proposal is also being posted for public comment to determine whether it should also be considered along with the strawman solution. | |||
| Current Status: | The Strawman Proposal is the result of collaboration among the participants of the post-Toronto TMCH implementation meetings. The Limited Preventative Registration Proposal is developed by and supported by the BC/IPC. In addition to the public comment period, ICANN is also seeking policy implementation guidance from the GNSO Council in relation to both of these proposals. | |||
| Next Steps: | Comments will be summarized and analyzed, and revisions to the relevant procedures may be considered based on the feedback received in this public comment period and from the GNSO Council. | |||
| Staff Contact: | Karen Lentz | Email: | karen.lentz@icann.org | |
| Detailed Information | ||||
| Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose | ||||
Out of the recent Clearinghouse implementation discussions, a strawman solution has been produced to balance and address the concerns of affected stakeholders. This strawman solution is being posted for public comment. This includes:
One element of the IPC/BC proposal that was not included in the strawman solution concerned a proposal for a "Limited Preventative Registration" mechanism. This revised mechanism is proposed by the IPC/BC to address concerns related to solutions for second level defensive registrations that did not achieve consensus among the participants in the implementation meeting. The Limited Preventative Registration proposal is also being posted for public comment to determine whether it should be considered along with the strawman solution. | ||||
| Section II: Background | ||||
The Trademark Clearinghouse facilitates the protection of trademark rights during the initial allocation and registration periods for domain names in new generic top level domains (new gTLDs). All new gTLD registries will be required to use Clearinghouse data to ensure that a set of mandatory trademark rights protection mechanisms are applied to all new domain registrations occurring in at least the first 90 days of domain registration. These mechanisms are described in the Applicant Guidebook for new gTLD applicants. Following discussions at the Toronto meeting, ICANN met with a group of stakeholder representatives to complete implementation discussions on the Trademark Clearinghouse and its associated rights protection mechanisms. Among other subjects, these implementation meetings addressed the recent IPC/BC proposal for Improvements and Enhancements to the RPMs for new gTLDs [PDF, 68 KB]. | ||||
| Section III: Document and Resource Links | ||||
Public Comment is being sought on the following documents:
| ||||
| Section IV: Additional Information | ||||
| ||||
...
FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.
|
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.The ALAC wishes to comment on the Trademark Clearinghouse "Strawman Solution" from a number of different perspectives.
Was this the right time for re-opening Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs)?
As the RPMs outlined in the Applicant Guidebook for the first round of new gTLDs were arrived at through an extremely difficult but successful consensus process, the ALAC’s first preference would be to not re-open this sensitive issue at this point. However, the ALAC also acknowledges that the concerns of the IPC/BC do have some basis, as demonstrated by the significant level of defensive registrations within existing TLDs as well as ongoing UDRP activity. Given that, the ALAC is prepared to comment on the specific RPMs being proposed on their individual merits.
...
Lightweight "Claims 2" period of 6-12 – fee-based: Although a modification of the original TMC, this is a new mechanism that departs significantly from the STI recommendations. ICANN staff have said that they believe that this is an implementation issue, but to date have not provided a detailed analysis to justify this conclusion. In the absence of such a convincing rationale, the ALAC must consider this matter to be a policy issue and that while staff has taken the position that this is implementation, it has not offered any useful rationale for this stancethat requires GNSO attention. The ALAC, in its minority statement to the STI, advocated an ongoing TMC but had some reservation about the chilling effects of such an extension. This new “light” TMC seems a reasonable balance - extending the TMC yet reducing the chilling effect - and the ALAC supports it. The ALAC encourages the GNSO to evaluate the impact of this mechanism on stakeholders and if applicable, recommend its implementation.
...