There is another component of the cost model. Registries currently
must bear the full cost of their sunrise processes. The Clearinghouse
will relieve them of part of this, os it is reasonable that the
registries (and perhaps registrars) who use the services also pay
part of the costs.

Alan

At 09/11/2009 11:40 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

>2009/11/9 Alan Greenberg
><alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
>Thanks.
>It will be sustainable if:
>1) there are sufficient mark holders that are interested in its
>service at fees that will sustain it AND
>2) there are sufficient new gTLDs going live to need its services.
>
>
>3) The system implements a pricing regime that is at least based on
>cost recovery.
>
>This may be assumed but I wonder... the price cannot be set too low
>so to please mark holders, and must reflect the true cost of mark
>holders. If mark holders want to lobby governments and WIPO for
>subsidy, that's their business, but we can't keep the price of
>registration/maintenance artificially low.
>
>As for concerns about sustainability, I would think that you
>couldn't have a clearinghouse without recurring maintenance fees.
>Given that TMs need to be continually seerted/defended to stay live,
>it seems only reasonable that all entries in the clearinghouse
>require periodic renewal. If renewal fees are pricved to reflect
>cost recovery, sustainability need not be an issue.
>
>
>- Evan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

Dear all,

Evan Leibovitch wrote Mon, 9 Nov 2009 03:26:
(...)
>Alan and Olivier have done a fantastic job in assembling together a
>compendium of diverse views while still tracking the work being done on this
>issue within the NCUC and GNSO's STI working group.
>
>The only deficiency I see is beyond the bounds of the specific issues raised
>by the Board, because (IMO) the Board has been listening to the IPC and US
>government and is seeing the issues within those groups' frames of
>reference.
>
>What I mean to say is... there seems to be an asssumption that all the brand
>owners are working in good faith and (at least most of) the targets of their
>UDRP/URS actions are working in bad faith. But what protections exist to
>prevent abuse? How do we protect legitimate brand protection interests while
>protecting harrassment good-faith use that brand owners don't want? (ie,
>"this-brand-sucks.tld") Such good-faith registrants are usually low in the
>resources needed, and brand owners can use the processes to hound them into
>submission. This is of significant concern to me as we move to opening up
>new TLDs.
>
>The NCUC has been addressing this internally, but such issues have not
>appeared to make their way into the thought process of the Board (or the
>STI) in dealing with this issue.
>
>Is this considered a significant issue within At-Large? How do we best
>(re-)introduce this issue, which goes beyond the Board's charge to GNSO?

I fully support the concerns and questions raised by Evan and, I think, this
should be an issue for ALAC (and RALOs). And THANKS to Alan and Olivier
for the excellent preparation and piece of work!

Best,
Wolf

comunica-ch
phone +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
www.comunica-ch.net

Digitale Allmend
http://blog.allmend.ch -

EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
http://euralo.org

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

Yes, that are some problems I heard from the lawyers in Seoul. Let's see if
this goes. best

vanda

From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 10:10 PM
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Vanda UOL; 'ALAC Working List'
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement

That is sort of what I meant by my line 2.

If there are is *relatively* regular stream of new gTLDs, the TM holders
using the Clearinghouse will decide it is worthwhile maintaining their marks
there - remember that there will have to be periodic renewal of each mark
to demonstrate that it is still valid, and there will be fees to TM holders
for this. So even without a "steady" stream, they may see value in
supporting the Clearinghouse. At some point, however, the rate of new gTLDs
may fall too low...

Alan

At 08/11/2009 06:11 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

May I add that IMHO it will not be sustainable if it only works during the
sunrise period?
I can't see a steady stream of new gTLD creation. If at all, they'll be
bursty and a Clearinghouse will obviously have regular costs. That's not
compatible.
Kind regards,

Olivier

Thank you for the kind comment.

This is certainly an important issue, but your analysis of the work
to date is not quite accurate, as there has been both the admission
that such problems could exist, and that they will need to be dealt with.

Sanctions for "abuse" of the URS (and let's be pragmatic, abuse is
likely to be judged differently depending on who the beholder is)
have yet to be discussed in the STI group (we have had only one
meeting dedicated to the URS). However, both the IRT report and the
staff proposal sets what I presume will be the base level of
sanction: three occasions where complaints are abusive will bar the
complainant from filing a URS for 1 year (abusive not yet defined).

NCSG has defined a set of sanctions which I am guessing will deemed
to be too high by the group as a whole. Presumably the final outcome,
if there is one, will be in the middle.

Alan

At 08/11/2009 01:26 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

>Greetings from Las Vegas, my first non-conference, non-family travel
>in years (current gambling tally: -$91 after two days)
>
>Alan and Olivier have done a fantastic job in assembling together a
>compendium of diverse views while still tracking the work being done
>on this issue within the NCUC and GNSO's STI working group.
>
>The only deficiency I see is beyond the bounds of the specific
>issues raised by the Board, because (IMO) the Board has been
>listening to the IPC and US government and is seeing the issues
>within those groups' frames of reference.
>
>What I mean to say is... there seems to be an asssumption that all
>the brand owners are working in good faith and (at least most of)
>the targets of their UDRP/URS actions are working in bad faith. But
>what protections exist to prevent abuse? How do we protect
>legitimate brand protection interests while protecting harrassment
>good-faith use that brand owners don't want? (ie,
>"this-brand-sucks.tld") Such good-faith registrants are usually low
>in the resources needed, and brand owners can use the processes to
>hound them into submission. This is of significant concern to me as
>we move to opening up new TLDs.
>
>The NCUC has been addressing this internally, but such issues have
>not appeared to make their way into the thought process of the Board
>(or the STI) in dealing with this issue.
>
>Is this considered a significant issue within At-Large? How do we
>best (re-)introduce this issue, which goes beyond the Board's charge to GNSO?
>
>- Evan

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac