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

Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Sun May 12 04:46:33 UTC 2013


Hi Hong, Rinalia,

Firstly, thank you for doing the heavy lifting. I have added my thoughts on
the wiki, after the most recent revision by Rinalia.

Kind Regards,
Sala

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <
rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



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

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


More information about the IDN-WG mailing list