ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

AW: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment period opened

It surprised me, too, to read such a request for public comment. It looks like 
ICANN being faced now with a never expected reaction - although that has been 
discussed extensively before the window opening. Learning by doing is the most 
effective (sometimes not efficient) way.

Kind regards

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von william.drake@xxxxxx
Gesendet: Sonntag, 12. Februar 2012 12:34
An: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs - public comment 
period opened

 While I'm not particularly verklempt about this, I agree with Mary that it 
would be nice to know how and why this being done...


-----<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: -----

 To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 From: <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 Date: 02/10/2012 10:52PM 
 Subject: Re: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs  - public comment 
period opened
   Maybe I'm just sleep-deprived, but I was wondering when, whether and how
ICANN decides to open public comment periods on ostensibly non-policy
issues and recommendations (as this one seems to be). 
While I think it will be helpful to get public and open information
about the source of the perception that trademark owners feel the need
to defensively register at the top level, and it will certainly be
useful to get more suggestions as to how ICANN can better communicate to
trademark holders the current protections available (including the
option of a Legal Rights Objection process), I'm curious as to: (1) what
prompted this particular comment period; and (2) the basis upon which
ICANN decides on public comment periods relating to requests for
clarifications/information rather than when (as is more common)
soliciting direct comment on pending recommendations and specific policy
More specifically, the ATRT had recommended that public comment periods
have distinct purposes (e.g. Notice of Inquiry vs Notice of Policy
Making), and that prioritization of these "should be established based
on coordinated community input and consultation with staff". Can ICANN
staff comment on how this is done?
(OTOH if this comment period relates to a policy matter that might lead
to Board consideration or adoption of new measures per the Bylaws, that
opens a whole other set of issues and questions ... !)
I'm curious also as to what other Councilors and/or your constituents

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:

From: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
To:"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2/10/2012 10:50 AM
Subject: [council] Defensive Applications for New gTLDs  - public
comment period opened

Defensive Applications for New gTLDs 
Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 6 February 2012 
Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains 
Purpose (Brief): The New gTLD Program features carefully crafted, new
protections for trademark owners and consumers. When considering
applications for new top-level names, the process is designed to protect
these important interests through independent objection and dispute
resolution processes (and other processes). However, as the time of the
opening of the new gTLD application window drew near, parties stated
their perception that they will need to submit "defensive" gTLD
applications as a means to protect their trademarks. ICANN is seeking
public comment on the sources of this perception and how it can be
Public Comment Box Link:
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>