[council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH)

["Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

 

A reminder that this item is on our agenda for discussion next week.  I believe 
that we need to respond to Fadi in as constructive, well-considered and 
comprehensive a manner as possible.

 

Therefore, please can you personally consider the letter, the issues it raises 
and ensure that these are discussed with your respective groups so that you are 
in a position to discuss the Council’s response.

 

Any contributions to the list in advance of December 20th most welcome.

 

Noting:

 

“I am seeking policy guidance from the GNSO Council on two items as part of the 
next steps for the implementation of the TMCH, namely, the Strawman Proposal 
and the IPC/BC proposal for limited defensive registrations” 

 

And 

 

“… a request from the New GTLD Program Committee’s April resolution where it 
requested “the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive 
registrations at the second level should be undertaken”(2012.04.10.NG2)”

 

Thank-you.

 

 

Jonathan

 

 

 

From: Fadi Chehade [mailto:fadi.chehade@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 04 December 2012 22:47
To: Jonathan Robinson
Cc: Margie Milam; David Olive
Subject: TMCH

 

Dear Jonathan,

 

As reported in my recent blog on the Trademark Clearinghouse (see: 
http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark-clearinghouse-meetings/),
 the recent implementation TMCH related discussions led to the development of a 
strawman model  to address some of the proposed improvements requested by the 
BC/IPC.   I am very pleased with the efforts shown by the participants in these 
discussions, as they reflect a willingness to explore improvements to the TMCH 
and the rights protection mechanisms available in new GTLDs.

 

I am seeking policy guidance from the GNSO Council on two items as part of the 
next steps for the implementation of the TMCH, namely, the Strawman Proposal 
and the IPC/BC proposal for limited defensive registrations.   Each of these 
documents are posted for public comment 
(see:http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm) 
to allow the ICANN community the opportunity to comment on these proposals.  
Specifically, policy guidance is sought on the portion that pertains to the 
expansion of the scope of the trademark claims, although comments on any aspect 
of the Strawman Model is welcome in the event the Council is interested in 
broadening its response.  The specific proposal is that:

 

Where there are domain labels that have been found to be the subject of 
previous abusive registrations (e.g., as a result of a UDRP or court 
proceeding), a limited number (up to 50) of these may be added to a 
Clearinghouse record (i.e., these names would be mapped to an existing record 
for which the trademark has already been verified by the Clearinghouse).  
Attempts to register these as domain names will generate the Claims notices as 
well as the notices to the rights holder. 

 

Not included in the Strawman Model is the IPC/BC proposal for a limited 
preventative registrations.  In general, there was not support among non-IPC/BC 
participants for solutions to the issue of second level defensive registrations 
among the participants in the TMCH meetings.   After hearing concerns regarding 
this issue, members of the IPC/BC provided a description of a preventative 
mechanism, the “Limited Preventative Registration,” which has also been 
published for public comment.    As this issue is relevant to a request from 
the New GTLD Program Committee’s April resolution where it requested “the GNSO 
to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second 
level should be undertaken”(2012.04.10.NG2), I am seeking GNSO Council feedback 
on this IPC/BC proposal as well.

 

It would be ideal if the GNSO Council could take up these issues at its 
December meeting.

 

Finally, addressing some of the criticisms on the process used by Staff in 
convening these meetings, I hope that you can appreciate that Staff is not 
circumventing the GNSO processes. The Strawman Model and my blog posting always 
clarified that this request to the GNSO Council was coming.  One of my goals as 
CEO is to enhance collaboration in the ICANN community as it tackles difficult 
issues.   I truly believe that the development of strawman proposals on this 
and other issues can be a useful tool to inform policy and implementation 
discussions.   I hope that you will consider this request in that light.

 

We look forward to the Council’s reply to this request.

 

 

Best Personal Regards,

 

Fadi Chehade

President and CEO

ICANN