Re: [council] IGO/RC motion

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Was going to comment on this, but Alan captured my questions exactly.  In
London, I was operating under the impression that we were discussing
lifetime -notifications-, but the amendments indicate lifetime -claims-.
Please correct me if I¹ve got this wrong.

Thanks--

J.


On 7/14/14, 18:23 , "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>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-requirement
>s-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
>