[council] FW: TMCH
- To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] FW: TMCH
- From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 09:30:59 -0000
- In-reply-to: <364E6B44-FA5F-4A67-AC81-C8AC59AEDD1A@icann.org>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <364E6B44-FA5F-4A67-AC81-C8AC59AEDD1A@icann.org>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AQHG0/tyDwPaqFFcllTFfHxLqVL/1ZgX7R1Q
Please see below for a letter received from Fadi Chehade this morning.
Clearly it potentially both adds items to our agenda and provides more content
for some of our on-going topics / themes.
From: Fadi Chehade [mailto:fadi.chehade@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 04 December 2012 22:47
To: Jonathan Robinson
Cc: Margie Milam; David Olive
As reported in my recent blog on the Trademark Clearinghouse (see:
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
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
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,
President and CEO