[At-Large] [ALAC] Summary of Trademark Clearing House Meeting [Remote Streaming]

Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Tue Aug 21 22:48:04 UTC 2012


Dear Wolf,

Yes the points you and Rudi raised are critical when we will be reviewing
Version 2 although there is nothing to prevent us from analysing Version 1
as it currently stands. The cost factor of course we can assess once the
proposed design is in place etc so we can see what is reasonable and what's
not.

It will be good to see the basis of what is used for cost modelling without
a doubt.

Cheers,
Sala

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net>wrote:

> Dear Sala and all,
>
> thanks for the interesting points you raised. And we touched this issue
> during our monthly call tonight. A highly relevant question is - what Rudi
> mentioned below - "Who pays for the services that are of benefit to the
> Trademark owners ?" Is it - at the end of the chain - the end user again
> who has to refund all the related investments? This should be a key
> question for our community.
>
> Kind regards,
> Wolf
>
>
> Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:28:
> >Dear All,
> >
> >In any regulatory model where infrastructure is being set up, in this case
> >a specific type of information infrastructure, there are serious costs
> >associated with it, whether they are CAPEX or OPEX costs. For those
> putting
> >in the investment, there is an expected return on investment whether this
> >is over a period of time or not. The complexity in what is being set up
> >lies in the fact that a data bank does not exist yet, in other worlds when
> >the queries are pumped into the system than they will form a baseline
> where
> >others can eventually draw or issue new searches etc. It is another thing
> >to make it interoperable where these queries can be run across multiple
> >registries. There are many other factors and variables to consider, for
> >instance, updating caches or lists and when that is going to be done.
> >
> >They are at the moment brainstorming on the general architecture that it
> >should take from a technical operational standpoint to something that is
> >workable and efficient and that can be used. As you can imagine they have
> >to do this carefully because of the obligations that come with it. My view
> >is that we wait for them to work on their Version 2 which will be
> >significantly different from Version 1 as there were many things discussed
> >in the meeting as it was more like a directly affected stakeholder
> >consultation if you wish. Yes, we are stakeholders too and there is
> nothing
> >to stop us from joining the mailing list or reading the wiki etc but at
> >this stage, I would say we wait and analyse the Version 2 which will be
> >posted for comments and where other constituencies and advisory committees
> >will be asked for their perspective.
> >
> >Of course this is not to stop us from working on a few things now.
> >
> >Kind Regards,
> >Sala
> >
> >On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> When reading through the Trademark Clearinghouse: Preliminary Cost Model
> >> (version 1 June 2012) I was surprised reading the following paragraph :
> >>
> >> > Services to Registries
> >> > Initial implementation and fee discussions indicate that registries
> will
> >> pay for access to the Clearinghouse database. Further details are still
> >> being worked out; however, initial estimates based on currently
> available
> >> information indicate that a set-up fee of USD 7,000 - 10,000 will be due
> >> per TLD registry. The set-up fee would cover Sunrise and Trademark
> Claims
> >> processes as established by ICANN, as well as assistance in integration
> and
> >> testing. Additional fees will be due in other circumstances such as
> >> participation in other programs or ancillary services.
> >>
> >> Does this mean the registries do have to pay for the services that are
> of
> >> benefit to the Trademark owners ? In the previous paragraph is
> mentioned :
> >>
> >> > Services to Rightsholders
> >> > The primary services offered to rights holders are: (1) authentication
> >> as a trademark and (2) validation of proof-of-use. The first establishes
> >> that rights information meets the criteria for Clearinghouse inclusion
> and
> >> the second establishes that a Clearinghouse record meets the standard
> for
> >> Sunrise eligibility as described by ICANN, i.e., demonstration of use of
> >> the trademark. A bundled fee is expected where these services are
> performed
> >> together. Proof of use validation would also be available at an
> individual
> >> price if such is requested subsequent to the original submission of
> rights
> >> data for authentication.
> >> > The bundled fee or price for these initial services (authentication
> and
> >> validation) is expected to be less than USD 150 per submission. Annual
> >> renewal fees for Clearinghouse records are expected at a percentage of
> the
> >> initial price. The low fee requires that submissions be inexpensive and
> >> straightforward to process. Complex circumstances and additional
> services
> >> will add to the cost.
> >> > There may be additional charges if further scrutiny is required (such
> as
> >> a re-submission due to errors in the original submission or an appeal to
> >> the initial Clearinghouse determination). Also, non-electronic
> submissions
> >> might be available at a higher rate in order to cover handling costs.
> >>
> >>
> >> As such I understand the Trademark owners just pay a very small fee to
> get
> >> their name been protected while the majority of the cost is covered by
> the
> >> registry, which in the end means the registrant will pay for it !!
> >>
> >> What's ALAC's position in this ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Rudi Vansnick
> >>
> >>
> >> Op 21-aug-2012, om 17:56 heeft Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro het
> volgende
> >> geschreven:
> >>
> >> > Dear All,
> >> >
> >> > There was a 2 day meeting which concluded today on Trademark Clearing
> >> Hose
> >> > Draft Implementation Model that was tabled in Prague. There was much
> >> > discussion stemming from the 2 day meeting that was productive. The
> >> > recordings are available and hopefully will be posted on
> >> > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-
> >> >
> >> > For now here is my take on what occurred.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> >> > P.O. Box 17862
> >> > Suva
> >> > Fiji
> >> >
> >> > Twitter: @SalanietaT
> >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >> > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
> >> > <Trademark Clearing House Draft Implementation
> >> Model.docx>_______________________________________________
> >> > At-Large mailing list
> >> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >> >
> >> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> At-Large mailing list
> >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >>
> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> >P.O. Box 17862
> >Suva
> >Fiji
> >
> >Twitter: @SalanietaT
> >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
> >_______________________________________________
> >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)
> >
>
> EuroDIG Secretariat
> http://www.eurodig.org/
> mobile +41 79 204 83 87
> Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
>
> EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
> http://euralo.org
>
> Profile on LinkedIn
> http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
>



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

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



More information about the At-Large mailing list