<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
- To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 11:23:26 -0400
- In-reply-to: <AA2CD321EE9B1F4D99ECFC1A2B0342320615F6@stntexmb12.cis.neus tar.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E4B0BD6@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit> <AA2CD321EE9B1F4D99ECFC1A2B0342320615F6@stntexmb12.cis.neustar.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeff (and others),
I believe that your (upper case) wording below is incorrect in a very
substantive way. you say "50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS",
The 20 March document
(http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution-memo-20mar13-en.pdf)
specifies that a TM holder can add up to 50 strings PER TMCH RECORD.
That implies that for a mark that is registered in multiple (perhaps
100+) jurisdictions, and is thus has a similar number of entries in
the TMCH, the number of abused strings that could be entered into the
TMCH for a single TM character string could be far larger than 50.
Alan
At 22/05/2013 10:42 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding. I think there are some points in here that
need to be discussed at the community level and some flaws (in my
view) in the logic of the assumptions behind the decision. I would
like to propose adding this as a topic for the next council meeting
and inviting one or more members of the BGC to our call.
I will provide more of a background on my concerns with the decision
in a subsequent e-mail, but I would like to get this on the agenda
and get the invites out there to the BGC. I would also request that
the ICANN Board to NOT adopt this recommendation until a full
discussion can take place.
PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT PERSONALLY CONCERNED WITH THE RULE ALLOWING
50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS. AS A REGISTRY, WE ARE
BUILDING IN THE CAPABILITY AND WILL LEAVE THAT DEBATE TO
OTHERS. BUT I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE WORDING OF THIS
DECISION AND THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE ALONG WITH THE IMPACT ON THE
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MODEL ESPECIALLY IF THIS DECISION IS EVER USED TO
SET PRECEDENT IN FUTURE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS.
This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably
from outside legal counsel). It was written as a legal brief in
litigation would be written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire
bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. If ICANN wanted to justify
their decision to protect their proclamation for the 50 variations,
they could have done it in a number of ways that would have been
more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration Process as a
way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model. It not only
demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an
accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if
we do not step in.
Jonathan - can we add this to the agenda and invite the BGC members
to the next Council meeting?
Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:32 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Regarding reconsideration request from the
Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the
Trademark Clearinghouse
Hello All,
For information, I have attached details on reconsideration request
13.3 from the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG).
These have been published at:
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration
The Board's Governance Committee considered the request at its
meeting in Amsterdam on 16 May 2013, and its recommendation is now posted.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|