[ALAC] Meeting to discuss TMCH Implementation as well as possible changed to the TM protections

Sat Nov 17 19:25:36 UTC 2012

Thank you Alan and Evan for the updates and for holding the fort and
watching out.

Warm Regards,
Sala

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Fatimata <fsylla at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Alan and Evan for attending this marathon meeting and keeping us
> informed.
>
> ALAC should be given the means to physically participate next time IMHO.
>
> Best,
> Fatimata
>
> T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network
>
> Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>
> >I concur with what Alan said.
> >
> >While I was disheartened by the second-class-citizen status afforded ALAC
> >at these meetings, our presence here was greater than it was within the
> IRT
> >or STI efforts. I like to think that, together with the NCSG, we (again)
> >fended off the worst excesses requested by the rights holders. However, as
> >Alan said, we are sympathetic to the desire to reduce cybersquatting,
> >frivolous and defensive registrations, and end-user
> confusion/misdirection.
> >
> >
> >On 17 November 2012 00:10, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Copy of a message sent to ALAC list
> >> ===================================
> >>
> >> As you are aware, a meeting was held in Brussels
> >> several weeks ago to discuss implementation
> >> issues for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH).
> >> The meeting included representatives of the GNSO
> >> Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, but not
> >> At-Large. On Thursday and Friday of this week, a
> >> follow-on meeting was held in Los Angeles. In
> >> addition to a discussion of many of the technical
> >> issues related to the TMCH, a full day was spend
> >> discussing a list of issues that had been
> >> presented to ICANN by the GNSO Business and
> >> Intellectual Property Constituencies
> >> (
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/ncsg-to-icann-01nov12-en.pdf
> >> ).
> >> This time At-Large was represented (unfortunately
> >> only remotely as no travel funding was provided).
> >> I had the honour of participating along with Evan.
> >>
> >> The first day on the BC/IPC issues was both
> >> interesting and productive. The intent was:
> >>
> >> 1. To fully understand what it was that the BC
> >> and IPC were asking for. The original document
> >> was not particularly clear, and in fact, the
> >> BC/IPC have spent the weeks following Toronto fleshing out their ideas.
> >>
> >> 2. To understand whether these issues were in
> >> fact just implementation (as the BC/IPC)
> >> believed, or Policy, which should be addressed by
> >> GNSO Policy processes. The issue has been much
> >> discussed within ICANN, but the difference has
> >> never been formally addressed before. Staff were
> >> charged with starting to develop a methodology
> >> for making such decisions in the future. Although
> >> the work is still preliminary, it was used to
> >> analyze the more controversial of the BC/IPC
> >> proposals, and the outcome matched that of the
> >> discussions within ALAC. They were all deemed to
> >> be Policy and thus required GNSO action to
> >> formally change the status quo (a relief to some
> >> at the table, and troubling to others).
> >>
> >> 3. To brainstorm the issues raised by the BC/IPC
> >> and see if any solutions could be found to
> >> address the issues that concerned them which at
> >> the same time might be acceptable to the other
> >> stakeholders. After a rather harrowing day (12
> >> solid hours, followed by another 2 hours on
> >> Friday) the result was a strawman proposal. The
> >> proposal completely pleased none of the people
> >> involved, which some people say is a good measure
> >> of a reasonable compromise. Regardless, it is a
> >> good start for more traditional community-based
> >> discussions which now have to happen.
> >>
> >> ALAC's first position was that we would prefer to
> >> not have new policy changes in the new TLD
> >> program at this late date. However we also did
> >> look at the individual issues as discussed in a
> >> message I sent earlier this week. The resultant
> >> strawman proposal actually fits in moderately
> >> well with the positions that ALAC took. Of
> >> course, this is not yet a formal policy and there
> >> are many details to be developed. This is perhaps
> >> not surprising, as many of the ALAC positions to
> >> protect innocent Internet users coincide well
> >> with TM holders desire to prevent cyber-squatting
> >> and fraud, and the over-reaching that some
> >> attribute to TM holders (that is, wanting
> >> protections far an above those granted by the TM
> >> itself) were to some extent held in control.
> >>
> >> I have to note that this type of focus group is
> >> not an unknown way to try to bridge widely
> >> disparate positions, but it is a very uncommon
> >> one in ICANN, and one that some people have said
> >> violates the bottom up multi-stakeholder model of
> >> ICANN. It does bear some similarity to the STI
> >> group which many herald as one of the more
> >> effective ICANN policy efforts. It also re-opened
> >> issues that the community (well, part of the
> >> community including At-Large) had thought or
> >> hoped were closed issues. Whether it was an
> >> effective move or not history will tell. One of
> >> the measures that I have is how quickly we can
> >> convene a more formal ICANN process to refine and
> >> actually approve a policy coming out of this proposal.
> >>
> >> After Toronto, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé had said
> >> that he considers the TMCH to be a critical issue
> >> and would personally oversee its implementation.
> >> True to his word, he personally ran the 14 hours
> >> of meetings. It was interesting!
> >>
> >> I will elaborate (as perhaps will Evan) more in
> >> the coming days on some of the high and low
> >> points of the meeting, but this will have to do
> >> for the moment. Today I was on the call for over
> >> 8 hours, and yesterday including a GNSO meeting
> >> starting at 6 am and one other WG, I totaled 15
> >> hours of teleconferences. So it is perhaps time
> >> for a bit of rest and relaxation.
> >>
> >> You can find the initial description of outcomes
> >> of the meeting at
> >> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/.
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ALAC mailing list
> >> ALAC at 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+(ALAC)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Evan Leibovitch
> >Toronto Canada
> >
> >Em: evan at telly dot org
> >Sk: evanleibovitch
> >Tw: el56
> >_______________________________________________
> >ALAC mailing list
> >ALAC at 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+(ALAC)
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at 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+(ALAC)
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851