<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council
- To: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council
- From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:02:31 +0100
- Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=key-systems.net; h=content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:references:subject :subject:to:mime-version:user-agent:from:from:date:date :message-id; s=dkim; t=1361383163; x=1362247163; bh=j1Mg1PHdPDE/ FFAAUTRdy+P74hQGK8UO1B+iyjMU1cQ=; b=ckdP7CLqGIXDJ4AQdz5uly2PRnn0 9R50jAkjL9f7jk9eMJ72k4Q8GJL81r3CTl0qEZ+rgIdRSGk2rVPMojfKLxIny1tw WzlwK6BdS4UWyUfHhi/8ohqFdFl5fuTyy+zWqRHPembr6EXFO/dkCyC0sGntNYe1 j6PjNR5wt+Iptuw=
- In-reply-to: <560B87A6C4C20F4999D73431D61B4847082AC5B15F@SJUSEVS10.steptoe.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <560B87A6C4C20F4999D73431D61B4847082AC5B15F@SJUSEVS10.steptoe.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
Hi Brian,
nice spin.
It would have been in the interest of the whole process to represent the
issues fairly without bias. The existing RPMs had been developed and
agreed upon with the consent and active participation of the IPC and BC.
It was agreed at the time that while not perfect, they were sufficient.
Certain aspects now on the table again were summarily rejected. As Fadi
had correctly recognized and stated in Amsterdam, these proposals are a
second bite of the apple - outside of all community consensus to the
sole benefit of one interest group and at the cost of all others.
Best,
Volker
Dear all:
As promised on our last Council teleconference, here is written
feedback from the IPC with respect to the current draft response to
Fadi Chehadé on strawman solution and limited preventative
registrations proposal. More specifically, this is a critique of the
draft GNSO Council statement on the strawman which we feel does not
accurately reflect a consensus or considered analysis as urged by
Chair Crocker.
The list is non-exhaustive and our intent is to demonstrate that there
are a number of flaws in the current draft that we should address as a
Council.
·The IPC is concerned with the statement that the strawman solution
represents “expansion of trademark rights beyond law.” Apart from
being a legal conclusion, it implies that the strawman is composed of
solutions or protections to which trademark owners have no legal
right. To the contrary, trademark owners have the legal right to
prevent infringement of their marks, and the rights protection
mechanisms being established as part of the new gTLD program are
founded on this fundamental right. The Strawman merely addresses the
implementation of this policy, not its extension or expansion.
·The IPC believes the use of the term “majority” throughout the letter
is misleading as it minimizes the fact that an entire Stakeholder
Group—indeed the Stakeholder Group whose members will bear the
greatest economic impact from inadequate rights protection
mechanisms—unanimously agrees that additional rights protection
mechanisms are essential. Put another way, a vote should be necessary
before asserting that a “majority of the Council” feels a certain way,
particularly the presumption that “protection policies for new gTLDs
are sufficient and need not be revisited.” It is also important to
note that not all stakeholder groups or constituencies submitted
comments in the public comment forum, so we should not assume that
there is a majority in support. It might be an overstatement. Of the
statements that were submitted, in addition to the BC/IPC comments,
the ISPC "endorsed the intent and critical importance of preventing
fraudulent registrations and reducing defensive measures and agrees
that the RPMs currently in the AGB may be improved; however, ISPCP is
neutral on the subject of specific RPMs." The use of the term
"majority" usually refers to a majority in each house. However, With
the IPC, ISP and BC taking a different approach, we believe the
statement of "majority " in support of the letter is not really
accurate. Sending the letter as written would go against the spirit
of the carefully thought-out comments of these groups.
·There is a difference between “agree[ment] to socialize these
[proposals] to the rest of the GNSO” as Dr. Crocker is quoted as
saying and the requisite GNSO Council support asserted in the draft
letter. Indeed, here are a few more compelling and recent quotes from
Fadi Chehadé during the NCPH intersessional meeting, “… I still
believe is an issue, I don't believe that the claims or the things
that you brought to my attention, you know, are not right. Quite the
opposite, I think they're very right, that's why I engaged, that's why
I jumped on it.” “Some of the things that came out of the strawman
discussions make sense and are implementation decisions.” And,
“unless the community vehemently disagrees … that work will not be
counted out, we will look at it in good faith.” Most recently, in Mr.
Chehadé’s February 13, 2013 video blog, he affirmed that the Strawman
Proposal is absolutely legitimate and that the statements he made in
Amsterdam on this topic were taken out of context. He confirmed that
his “mistake” was in the way he convened the meetings, and that the
work on the Strawman is “not throw away work”, but rather, it is
important work.
·The letter cites ICANN’s goal of advancing “competition in the domain
name industry,” but fails to reflect temperance with the new gTLD
policy toward not infringing the legal rights of others which advances
consumer trust of the system.
·The letter is silent with respect to the thirty-day sunrise notice
period—an aspect of the strawman solution that most public comments
seem to agree is a noncontroversial implementation detail.
·Comments on Claims 1 and Claims 2 appear seriously inaccurate and
seems to ignore the contours of the process and raise a number of
implementation questions as policy matters—“How would payments be made
and allocated? How do Registries and Registrars adapt their technical
systems…” etc.
·Claims 2 imposes fewer obligations and offers fewer benefits than
Claims 1. Thus, “lightweight” seems apt to us.
·Most conventional dictionaries define “disenfranchise” as follows,
“to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or some privilege or
immunity; especially: to deprive of the right to vote.” The strawman
has nothing to do with the right to vote. So what is the legal right
to which you are referring here? If what is meant is that adopting
the Strawman would deprive any stakeholder of a voice in the
development of the implementation of the policy that intellectual
property should be protected in the new gTLD, then that would ignore
the input of numerous stakeholders. If anything, the Strawman process
has enfranchised more concerned parties than ever before.
·The IPC fervently disagrees with dismissal of the Limited
Preventative Registration proposal as a “blocking mechanism.” Again,
this also seems seriously inaccurate and appears to ignore the
contours of the proposal. To sum up, it is a low-cost bulk sunrise
registration. It would provide precisely the same benefits to brand
owners as participation in each individual new gTLD sunrise period to
which they are qualified to participate in.
·The statement that this is entirely "a matter of policy" ignores the
fact that the Strawman proposal resulted from “*/implementation/*
discussions on the Trademark Clearinghouse and its associated rights
protection mechanism.”
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm.
The fact that Mr. Chehadé has asked the GNSO Council for input on the
Strawman proposal does not now turn it into a policy matter. In fact,
the Limited Preventative Registration mechanism was left out of the
Strawman proposal not because it was considered policy, but rather
simply because it did not achieve consensus among the participants in
the implementation meetings. It is thus completely within the
Council's purview to provide substantive input on these issues without
resorting to a PDP. Indeed, the original rights protection mechanisms
did not stem from a PDP, but from an informal GNSO process (the
*/Implementation /*Recommendation Team). Formation of a working
group to explore these implementation issues substantively is an
option that has not been fully explored.
·The response ignores the substantial number of comments submitted
during the public comment forum—which reflect a significant interest
in looking at this issue further from inside and, significantly,
outside the IP community. For example, the ALAC statement supports a
number of elements of the proposal, and encourages the GNSO to fairly
evaluate them. The proposed GNSO letter does not do so.
Thank you,
Brian
*Brian J. Winterfeldt *
Partner
bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Steptoe
+1 202 429 6260 direct
+1 202 903 4422 mobile
+1 202 429 3902 fax
*Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC***
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
www.steptoe.com <http://www.steptoe.com/>
+1 212.506.3935 direct
+1 212.506.3950 fax
*Steptoe & Johnson LLP – New York***
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
This message and any attached documents contain information from the
law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read,
copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message.
-------------------------------------------
*From:* owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Jonathan
Robinson[SMTP:JONATHAN.ROBINSON@xxxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:59:43 AM
*To:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* RE: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested
communication from council
*Auto forwarded by a Rule*
All,
A reminder that we really need to keep this moving.
I’d like to close it off this week if at all possible.
Jonathan
*From:*owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Petter Rindforth
*Sent:* 14 February 2013 10:39
*To:* john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
volker@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:volker@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Cc:* Mason Cole; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> List
*Subject:* Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested
communication from council
/"If Trademark law provided the level of protection to automatically
include non-exact matches in the manner proposed in the strawman,
lawmakers would have implemented such a list. Yet none did. While the
trademark protection can be extended to additional near match strings,
it is the duty of the courts to decide this. And just because a
certain string has been used in an infringing manner, that does not
mean that there are not also non-infringing manners in which the same
string may legitimately be used."/
This is in fact up to each Examiner of each national PTO.
That’s why it may take up to 10 months (or more) to pass such
trademark examination processes. I do not think such time would be
accepted by domain name applicants....
Strawman is dealing with an existing protection system in a more time
optimized way.
/ Petter
--
Petter Rindforth, LL M
Fenix Legal KB
Stureplan 4c, 4tr
114 35 Stockholm
Sweden
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail:petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu>
NOTICE
This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to
whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged
information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any
of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by
return e-mail.
Fenix Legal KB, Sweden,www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu>
Thank you
On 14 feb 2013 00:36 "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If that were so, there would be less of a problem, but it is not
so, in my opinion:
-Does a trademark allow its owner to prevent the use of the mark
by third parties in other classes, or if the mark is their name,
etc, etc?
I think not. There are reasons why trademarks are limited to
classes and regions and why legitimate use of the same trademarked
term cannot be prohibited. Yet LPR would do just that. If any
legitimate potential registrant missed the sunrise period or
decided to wait for a cheaper registration period, LPR would block
even legitimate registrations.
-Does a trademark require otherwise unrelated third parties to
implement and build and maintain a system at their own costs that
is solely used to inform others of a potential legal conflict,
confuse customers with information potentially irrelevant to their
planned use and that generally interferes with the customary flow
of business by scaring away or confusing potential legitimate
customers and delaying orders or inquiries?
I think not. Yet Claims II does just that to registrants,
registrars and registries. I am not aware of any other industry
that at their own cost had to create a warning system to inform
third parties of potential trademark abuse.
These are just the easiest examples of why the Strawman and the
attached LPR proposal will, in my opinion create new protections.
The claims process in itself is a new right for trademark holders
not previously granted by trademark law, so any extension of the
time period carefully considered and agreed upon by the community
expands the reach of this new right for trademark holders. These
proposals have been on the table before in some form or other and
have been rejected by the community. Fadi Chehade’s has stated
himself in his letter to the U.S. Congress that the 60 days period
should not be extended unilaterally by ICANN, yet this is what is
proposed now.
The extension of claims to non-exact matches was previously
rejected by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team, i.e. a GNSO
created team.
If Trademark law provided the level of protection to automatically
include non-exact matches in the manner proposed in the strawman,
lawmakers would have implemented such a list. Yet none did. While
the trademark protection can be extended to additional near match
strings, it is the duty of the courts to decide this. And just
because a certain string has been used in an infringing manner,
that does not mean that there are not also non-infringing manners
in which the same string may legitimately be used.
These proposals create a new fence to protect trademark holders
from legitimate and illegitimate registrations of their marks alike.
Solely the 30 day notice period does not create any new rights
specific to trademark holders. The rest is a matter for a PDP, not
for a closed door, no outside communication allowed session. ICANN
should not deviate from the multi-stakeholder principle. If any
outcome of our policy development and consensus building processes
is subject to unilateral revision once a small part of the
community is no longer sufficiently happy with the consensus
results, the multi-stakeholder model is dead.
Volker
I will not argue with your metaphor -- I am quite fond of apples.
But I do quibble with you saying the strawman is "an expansion of
the rights of a trademark holder in the domain world." Trademark
rights exist (not always consistently) in all earthly realms. The
strawman is not seeking to create new ones, merely to create a
method by which those that already exist can be enforced.
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested
communication from council
From: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz
<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2/12/13 4:25 pm
To: "john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Mason Cole" <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>,
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx List"
<mailto:council@gnso.icann.orgList> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I think Fadi has made it very clear during the meeting in
Amsterdam that he has now understood the BC and IPC requests
that led to the strawman as a second bite of the apple, as he
called it. The proposed contents of the strawman would
certainly constitute an expansion of the rights of a trademark
holder in the domain world. I therefore support sending the
draft letter as is.
Sent from my iPad
On 13.02.2013, at 01:11, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mason,
Did I not suggest the "expansion of rights" language is a
bit over the top?
Berard
--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested
communication from council
From: Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 2/12/13 3:00 pm
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> List"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Council colleagues --
As you know, Fadi requested of the council its input
regarding the strawman proposal resulting from the
BC's and IPC's request for additional RPMs in new
gTLDs. On December 27, I circulated an early draft of
a council reply.
The communication is due very shortly, and has been
taken up by a small group within the council to ensure
that all points of view are represented. Because this
is an agenda item for our meeting this week, at Maria
Farrell's helpful suggestion, I'm sending the current
draft to council so we can be prepared to discuss it
then. This draft does not reflect additional input of
the BC and IPC -- if this is provided prior to the
meeting, I'll be happy to forward it to the council.
Thanks --
Mason
--
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
>>>
|