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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Apr 24 00:46:30 UTC 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 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+ICANN+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+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)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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)
>
>_______________________________________________
>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




More information about the IDN-WG mailing list