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

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Sun May 5 14:31:58 UTC 2013 

I'm pleased to see the updated statement and re-affirm my vote!

Best,
-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <
rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello again, everyone.
>
> Based on Edmon's input and the responses to date, please find below a
> revised draft "ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark Clearinghouse
> and IDN Variants."  Blue text represents the input provided by Edmon
> (slightly tweaked for smooth integration into the overall text).  Red text
> represents my proposed addition to clarify why the Root LGR is applicable
> and has value for addressing the problem, plus an additional recommendation
> for the Board based on Edmon's contribution.
>
> Feedback appreciated for finalization a.s.a.p. on the policy development
> wiki workspace located here:
>
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Trademark+Clearinghouse+and+IDN+Variants+Workspace
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rinalia
>
>
> *Revised **Version: May 5th, 2013*
>
> *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.  If implemented, the model would clearly run against the public
> interest in the pertinent user communities.
>
>
> We wish to highlight two areas of particular concern in the recently
> published Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) requirements: Domain name matching
> and bundling.
>
> *
> *
>
> *Domain Name Matching*
>
> Since October 2011, 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.  Despite concerns
> raised by language community experts in the TMCH Implementation Assistance
> Group (IAG), the newly published 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.
>
> *
> *
>
> *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.
>
>
>  The TMCH requirements grant absolute first rights to trademark holders,
> which not only pre-empted certain business models, but also prevented
> 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.
>
> *
> *
>
> *Towards 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.  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.  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
> 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
> will create a framework for a more consistent management of variants across
> all levels.  Experts and Staff have projected that this process will
> 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.  We believe that
> ICANN
> already has all the necessary information to develop these solutions based
> on the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies that were
> required as part of the application submissions for new gTLDs offering IDN
> registrations.  The development of the solutions 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.
>
> *
> *
>
> *Summary of Recommendations to the ICANN Board*
>
>    1. Call for a more open and flexible TMCH model that is
>    variants-friendly and support a community-based, bottom-up solution for
>    TMCH implementation.
>    2. Ensure the IDN variant issue is addressed before the TMCH begin
>    providing services to the new gTLD registries.
>    3. Request from the ICANN CEO an interim mechanism that can yield
>    appropriate solutions efficiently and on an urgent basis that may
> involve:
>
>
>    - Additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities, who
>    will work in tandem with community members with relevant expertise.
>    - A consideration for expediting the LGR process for the Han script.
>    - Reviewing the IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules and Policies
>    submitted by new gTLD applicants offering IDN registrations as a basis
> for
>    developing the solutions.
>
>
> END
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Edmon <edmon at isoc.hk> wrote:
>
> > Sounds good.
> > Edmon
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net]
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2013 8:51 AM
> > > To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim
> > > Cc: Edmon; JJS; apralo; No name; ALAC Working List
> > > Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] [ALAC] Draft Statement on TMCH and
> > > Variants
> > >
> > > Hi Rinalia
> > >
> > > I think the sentence strikes the right balance.  Well done
> > >
> > > Holly
> > > On 04/05/2013, at 4:09 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Jean-Jacques and Edmon,
> > > >
> > > > Would the following be an acceptable middle ground?
> > > >
> > > > "In principle, the At-Large community does not support over-extensive
> > > > trademark protection measures.
> > > > However, we do strongly believe that users from all language
> > > > communities should be protected from confusion equally, irrespective
> > > > of the characters of the trademarks."
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rinalia
> > > >
> > > > 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=418836
> > > 44#co
> > > >> mment-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+th
> > > >>>> e+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
> > >
> > > -----
> > > 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>

More information about the IDN-WG mailing list