Re: [council] IGO/RC motion

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thomas, the proposed revised policy wording reads:

-       For RC Scope 2 identifiers: instead of 90-days TMCH claims 
notification protection, the claims notification service will run for 
the life of the TMCH. This will entail: (1) a notice sent to a 
potential registrant who attempts to register an Exact Match of the 
protected RC Scope 2 identifier; and (2) if the registrant proceeds 
with the registration, a notice sent to the relevant RC entity 
informing it of the registration. In addition, in considering any 
modified or new dispute resolution procedure for IGOs and INGOs the 
new IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG will be requested to take 
into account the GAC request that such a procedure should be at low 
or no cost in relation to the specified acronyms of the international 
Red Cross & Red Crescent movement (ICRC, CICR, IFRC, FICR).
-       For IGO Scope 2 identifiers: instead of 90-days TMCH claims 
notification protection, the claims notification service will run for 
the life of the TMCH. This will entail: (1) a notice sent to a 
potential registrant who attempts to register an Exact Match of the 
protected IGO Scope 2 Acronym; and (2) if the registrant proceeds 
with the registration, a notice sent to the relevant IGO informing it 
of the registration. In addition, in considering any modified or new 
dispute resolution procedure for IGOs and INGOs the new IGO-INGO 
Curative Rights Protection WG will be requested to take into account 
the GAC request that such a procedure should be at low or no cost to 
the IGO. Further, in considering any such modified or new dispute 
resolution procedure the new IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection WG 
will be requested to consider modifying certain aspects of the URS to 
enable its use by IGOs, and the
Are we REALLY sure that is what the NGPC was asking for?

For the RC, their words were "permanently protected from unauthorized 
use". A claims notice sounds pretty far from protected from 
unauthorized use. Moreover, since they do not necessarily have TMs of 
the names, the current after-the-fact protection mechanisms would not 
suffice, and even if/when they do, the damage they are looking to 
prevent may be over long before such remedies would kick in.
For the IGO names, their words were "If a registrant registers an 
IGO's protected acronym, the IGO would receive a notification of the 
registration from the TMCH for the life of the TMCH". The text above 
starts with the text "the claims notification service will run for 
the life of the TMCH" but then describes both the Claims Notification 
Service AND the Claims Notice. From 
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirements-28feb14-en.pdf, 
section 3, I quote:
> The "Claims Services" provide both (i) notices to potential domain 
> name registrants that a domain name they are seeking to register in 
> a TLD matches a Trademark Record of a Trademark Holder that has been 
> verified by the
> Trademark Clearinghouse (a "Claims Notice") and (ii) Notifications 
> of Registered Names ("NORNs") (as such term is defined in the 
> Functional Specifications). The Claims Notice is intended to provide 
> clear notice to the prospective domain name registrant of the scope 
> of the Trademark Holder's rights.
So they are asking for NORN for the life of the TMCH, but the 
proposed new recommendation text provides both the Claims Notice and NORN.
Alan


At 14/07/2014 02:53 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> All,
> I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London 
> meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of 
> the latest developments.
> Kind regards,
> Thomas