[ALAC] [IDN-WG] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants

Rinalia Abdul Rahim rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Wed May 8 07:32:48 UTC 2013


Hello everyone,

Jean-Jacques and I have responded to Hong's suggestions via the wiki.  If
there are other comments please do post them as soon as possible so that we
can finalize the advice at
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants+Workspace
.

I believe we are near consensus on the contents.

Best regards,

Rinalia

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Oliver,
>
> I was not aware that the Statement had been voted when sending out these
> revisions. I saw actually many people were still editing and improving it.
> But you are right that we need to freeze it sooner rather than later for
> the submission to the Board. We are already late for the RA process and the
> interim solution we propose may be too late to be taken into account.
>
> Hong
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Dear Hong,
> >
> > your suggested (1) appears clearer than the current "ICANN should treat
> > all trademarks equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademark".
> >
> > Also - to all involved, since several amendments are being made to this
> > Statement after it has been voted on, the ALAC will need to ratify this
> > Statement again. Amendments are significant enough to warrant a new
> > vote. Please be so kind to let me know when you have found a consensus
> > and are ready to freeze the Statement once and for all, to start a new
> > vote.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Olivier
> >
> > On 06/05/2013 13:01, Hong Xue wrote:
> > > Thanks to Edmon for referring to the sentence,  “ICANN should treat all
> > > trademarks equally” . When completing the draft at the late night after
> > the
> > > gala event in Beijing, I was actually thinking--
> > >
> > > (1) "ICANN RPM should treat the trademarks in any language or character
> > set
> > > equally", because [ as JJS stated] "users in any language community
> > should
> > > be protected from confusion equally".
> > >
> > > In addition, I strongly suggest including the following points.
> > >
> > > (2) "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.
> > > Confusion over the sources or origins of the goods or services can be
> > very
> > > destructive, particularly in the fields of banking, insurance and other
> > > high-security businesses."
> > >
> > > (3) Revised one item in the Recommendation
> > >
> > > >From "Additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities,
> who
> > > will work in tandem with community members with relevant expertise" to
> > > "ICANN (staff) supports the community members with relevant expertise
> to
> > > develop interim variants-capable trademark authentication/ verification
> > > services that are interoperable with the TMCH so as to enable the
> timely
> > > launch of the IDN TLDs."
> > >
> > > I've updated onto the wiki and wish for its speedy endorsement from the
> > > at-large community.
> > >
> > > Hong
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Edmon <edmon at isoc.hk> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I feel that the sentence is a bit confusing especially for:
> > >>
> > >> “ICANN should treat all trademarks equally”
> > >>
> > >> Because, though I am not a lawyer, I understand that there are
> different
> > >> types of Trademarks: National, Provincial, Registered, Unregistered,
> > etc...
> > >> and I also think (which is out of scope I do understand) that for
> > certain
> > >> TLDs, there should be a difference, e.g. for a “.paris” TM from Paris
> > >> “might” be appropriately given priority over others...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, as mentioned, I am more concerned about the overall statement
> > >> sending the message to the board than the specifics.  If people feel
> > >> strongly about the sentence, I can live with it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Edmon
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: JJS [mailto:jjs.global at gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 6:32 PM
> > >> To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim
> > >> Cc: Edmon; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List
> > >> Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Draft Statement on TMCH
> and
> > >> Variants
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Edmon and Rinalia,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I do have a question: what is the rationale for suggesting the
> deletion
> > of
> > >> the following sentence?
> > >>
> > >> "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."
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Don't we want "users to be protected from confusion equally"?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Jean-Jacques.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2013/5/3 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks, Edmon, for the suggestions on improving the statement.
> > >>
> > >> Everyone, any thoughts on Edmon's suggestions?  Indications of support
> > or
> > >> disagreement *with rationale* would be appreciated.  If you have
> > questions
> > >> or a need for clarification from Edmon on his proposal, please pose
> > them as
> > >> well.
> > >>
> > >> If Edmon's proposal is supported, I will request for ALAC agreement to
> > >> amend the statement.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >>
> > >> Rinalia
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Edmon <edmon at isoc.hk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Everyone,
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry for the late comments.  I read the draft at:
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants+Workspace?focusedCommentId=41883644#comment-41883644
> > >>> And I am supportive of the direction and aims for the statement.
> > >>> I personally believe that the issue that the TMCH is oblivious about
> > IDN
> > >>> Variants is real and it will be too late before long.  The TMCH MUST
> > >>> implement IDN Variant awareness, and there is no reason why they
> cannot
> > >>> based on what applicants have already submitted to ICANN in their
> > >>> applications.
> > >>>
> > >>> I do have 3 suggestions though if they could be adjusted:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. Under the section: Domain Name Bundling
> > >>> The recently presented TMCH requirements, by suggesting absolute
> first
> > >>> rights to trademark holders perhaps unintentionally not only
> pre-empted
> > >>> certain business models, but also pre-empted registries from
> > implementing
> > >>> “variant or bundling rules” and allocating domain names under such
> > >> “variant
> > >>> or bundling rules” prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period.
> > >>>
> > >>> 2. End of the first paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible
> TMCH
> > >>> Model
> > >>> To take out the sentence: " 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."
> > >>>
> > >>> 3. Beginning of last paragraph of: Towards A More Open and Flexible
> > TMCH
> > >>> Model
> > >>> 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.  ICANN
> already
> > >> has
> > >>> all the information for such implementation based on the IDN Tables
> and
> > >> IDN
> > >>> Registration Rules and Policies that must be submitted as part of the
> > >>> application for new gTLDs offering IDN registrations.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I would be supportive of the statement as-is, but think the above
> could
> > >>> help improve the statement.
> > >>>
> > >>> Edmon
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:
> > >> alac-bounces at atlarge-
> > >>>> lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels
> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:28 PM
> > >>>> To: Alan Greenberg
> > >>>> Cc: ALAC Working List; No name; apralo
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH
> > and
> > >>>> Variants
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What Alan says is my understanding of the topology and
> configuration.
> > >>>> What I don't know is if the proposed embraces Hong's vision for
> > >> variants.
> > >>>> I stand to be educated but if I follow Hong's objections, it seems
> > >>> variants
> > >>>> would be part of the solution only to the extent that such marks are
> > >>>> considered common data items and stored in the common database.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Carlton
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ==============================
> > >>>> Carlton A Samuels
> > >>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> > >>>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> > >>>> =============================
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Alan Greenberg
> > >>>> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> 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 at 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 at 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 at gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>> À : Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> Cc :
> > >>>>>>>> apralo <apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; No name <
> > >>>>>>>> idn-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ALAC Working List <
> > >>>>>>>> alac at 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 at 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+I
> > >>>>> CANN+Board+on+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants
> > >>>>>>>>> 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 community’s 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 at 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 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+Committe
> > >>>>> e+(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+Committe
> > >>>>> e+(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+Committe
> > >>>>> e+(ALAC)
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> APAC-Discuss mailing list
> > >>>>>> APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> 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+Committe
> > >>>>> e+(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)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----
> > >>>> No virus found in this message.
> > >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > >>>> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6269 - Release Date:
> > >> 04/23/13
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> IDN-WG mailing list
> > >>> IDN-WG at 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
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> IDN-WG mailing list
> > >> IDN-WG at 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>   _____
> > >>
> > >> No virus found in this message.
> > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > >> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6291 - Release Date:
> > 05/02/13
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> APAC-Discuss mailing list
> > >> APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
> > >>
> > >> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> IDN-WG mailing list
> IDN-WG at 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
>



More information about the ALAC mailing list