<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH)
- To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH)
- From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:47:11 -0000
- In-reply-to: <50C8BCB0.4000505@key-systems.net>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <011901cdd877$2c62c230$85284690$@ipracon.com> <50C8BCB0.4000505@key-systems.net>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AQJUhYoGRWhchwv7xHqNfAL196SgVQG6mmxolvpATlA=
Thank-you Volker,
I believe my job as chair is to ensure that the issues are raised, given a fair
hearing and then that an accurate view of the Council position or positions is
effectively communicated.
Your input is clearly helpful in getting to that point. Especially since you
sound like you have done your homework in looking back on previous
consideration of these issues.
Others, please chime in. Especially with regard to any of the specifics where
you may feel we can respond to Fadi.
Jonathan
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Volker Greimann
Sent: 12 December 2012 17:20
To: Jonathan Robinson
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Letter from Fadi Chehade (was FW: TMCH)
Dear Jonathan,
I believe I have already clarified my position on these proposals. This
position has been further supported by a review of preceeding policy decisions
on these matters which have shown that not only are these mostly matters of
policy but also that the demands proposed by the strawman are to a very large
degree in direct contradiction to previous policy decisions.
It should therefore be our position that we refer back to the earlier policy
decisions on these issues and reject any changes to these positions that have
not come through an established policy making process. ICANN should not be
subjected to more of these suddenly policy revisions in closed backroom
meetings and rather rely on its established processes.
If that means that these proposals will not be ready for prime-time at the time
of the launch of the new TLDs, so be it. I cannot in my best consciousness
support caving in to speciality interests to the detriment of the community of
the whole, of registries, registrars and registrants.
Best,
Volker
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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht
nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder
telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|