Mailing Lists
[ALAC] Adjustment of timing for vote on GNSO Trademark Issues report
Posted December 11th, 2009 by Mailing list user
During today's teleconference on New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook
V3, we discussed the timing regarding the vote on supporting the
report (see
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/name-issues_atlarge-lists.icann...)
and At-Large minority position statements (see
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/name-issues_atlarge-lists.icann...).
With the agreement of all on the teleconference, Cheryl agreed to
shorten the voting period from our normal "short" poll of 5 days to 3
days. This will allow additional time for discussion, and based on
recent voting history, should not adversely impact the number of ALAC
members voting.
According, to allow the vote to complete in time for the GNSO meeting
on Thursday morning, the vote will begin Monday morning, 14 Dec 2009
(the exact time to be determined).
This will allow the discussion on the report and minority positions
to be extended until approximately 18:00 UTC on Sunday.
If you have any interest at all in the issues, please do look at the
documents and send your questions or comments. Olivier and I will do
our best to address them. And please do remember that the question
asked by the Board was not whether to implement a Clearinghouse and
URS, but rather how to best do it.
Alan
_______________________________________________
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
[At-Large] [ALAC] Adjustment of timing for vote on GNSO Trademar
My apologies for not able to attend the call. I tried to stay up for
it but was really tired out after my flight to Taiwan for TWNIC annual
meeting.
I support the principle that "Brand owners want to be able to have
clear right-of-first-refusal to
reduce opportunities for cyber-squatting and to reduce the need for
URS and UDRP proceedings." and I agree that it is in the interest of
the at-large users.
The devils is in the detail however. I am concern about over reaching
their rights, by extension into combination of their trademark with
generic words.
I can also understand multi-national trademarks, that I would assumed
would cover most famous mark. However, I am not sure how national TM
is going to apply. Do you mean as a TM owner in China, I have rights
of refusal for a TLD (say .sydney) that primary market is in
Australia?
-James Seng
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Alan Greenberg
wrote:
> During today's teleconference on New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook V3, we
> discussed the timing regarding the vote on supporting the report (see
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/name-issues_atlarge-lists.icann...)
> and At-Large minority position statements (see
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/name-issues_atlarge-lists.icann...).
>
> With the agreement of all on the teleconference, Cheryl agreed to shorten
> the voting period from our normal "short" poll of 5 days to 3 days. This
> will allow additional time for discussion, and based on recent voting
> history, should not adversely impact the number of ALAC members voting.
>
> According, to allow the vote to complete in time for the GNSO meeting on
> Thursday morning, the vote will begin Monday morning, 14 Dec 2009 (the exact
> time to be determined).
>
> This will allow the discussion on the report and minority positions to be
> extended until approximately 18:00 UTC on Sunday.
>
> If you have any interest at all in the issues, please do look at the
> documents and send your questions or comments. Olivier and I will do our
> best to address them. And please do remember that the question asked by the
> Board was not whether to implement a Clearinghouse and URS, but rather how
> to best do it.
>
> Alan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[ALAC] Adjustment of timing for vote on GNSO Trademark Issues re
My apologies for not able to attend the call. I tried to stay up for
it but was really tired out after my flight to Taiwan for TWNIC annual
meeting.
I support the principle that "Brand owners want to be able to have
clear right-of-first-refusal to
reduce opportunities for cyber-squatting and to reduce the need for
URS and UDRP proceedings." and I agree that it is in the interest of
the at-large users.
The devils is in the detail however. I am concern about over reaching
their rights, by extension into combination of their trademark with
generic words.
I can also understand multi-national trademarks, that I would assumed
would cover most famous mark. However, I am not sure how national TM
is going to apply. Do you mean as a TM owner in China, I have rights
of refusal for a TLD (say .sydney) that primary market is in
Australia?
-James Seng
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Alan Greenberg
wrote:
> During today's teleconference on New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook V3, we
> discussed the timing regarding the vote on supporting the report (see
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/name-issues_atlarge-lists.icann...)
> and At-Large minority position statements (see
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/name-issues_atlarge-lists.icann...).
>
> With the agreement of all on the teleconference, Cheryl agreed to shorten
> the voting period from our normal "short" poll of 5 days to 3 days. This
> will allow additional time for discussion, and based on recent voting
> history, should not adversely impact the number of ALAC members voting.
>
> According, to allow the vote to complete in time for the GNSO meeting on
> Thursday morning, the vote will begin Monday morning, 14 Dec 2009 (the exact
> time to be determined).
>
> This will allow the discussion on the report and minority positions to be
> extended until approximately 18:00 UTC on Sunday.
>
> If you have any interest at all in the issues, please do look at the
> documents and send your questions or comments. Olivier and I will do our
> best to address them. And please do remember that the question asked by the
> Board was not whether to implement a Clearinghouse and URS, but rather how
> to best do it.
>
> Alan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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
[At-Large] [ALAC] Adjustment of timing for vote on GNSO Trademar
At 11/12/2009 12:10 AM, James Seng wrote:
>My apologies for not able to attend the call. I tried to stay up for
>it but was really tired out after my flight to Taiwan for TWNIC annual
>meeting.
>
>I support the principle that "Brand owners want to be able to have
>clear right-of-first-refusal to
>reduce opportunities for cyber-squatting and to reduce the need for
>URS and UDRP proceedings." and I agree that it is in the interest of
>the at-large users.
>
>The devils is in the detail however. I am concern about over reaching
>their rights, by extension into combination of their trademark with
>generic words.
Indeed, and that is why we have said that there must be tight
restrictions on such use and penalties for abuse. But note that this
is only with regard to pre-launch sunrise registrations which give
the brand owner a right of first refusal. The moment after launch,
they are free to acquire those names unless someone else gets there first.
Also note that according to the base report, a registry will have the
right to include such combinations if it wishes. What the minority
opinion adds is that all registries should allow it, in theory,
reducing the amount of cyber-squatting, user confusion and the need
to file UDRPs and URSs.
But your point is exactly the focus of the question. Will the
benefits as noted above, be overshadowed by TM holders successfully
gaming the system?
>I can also understand multi-national trademarks, that I would assumed
>would cover most famous mark. However, I am not sure how national TM
>is going to apply. Do you mean as a TM owner in China, I have rights
>of refusal for a TLD (say .sydney) that primary market is in
>Australia?
In this context, a "multinational" trademark is a registered
trademark issued to cover more than one country. Examples are a
Benelux TM which covers Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, and
Community Trade Mark (CTM) which is valid across the European Union.
Regarding a .sydney TLD, the registry will have the right to restrict
which trademarks that it allows in its sunrise and in this case might
restrict based on geographic area - See item 5.2 (ii)
Alan
>-James Seng
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[ALAC] Adjustment of timing for vote on GNSO Trademark Issues re
At 11/12/2009 12:10 AM, James Seng wrote:
>My apologies for not able to attend the call. I tried to stay up for
>it but was really tired out after my flight to Taiwan for TWNIC annual
>meeting.
>
>I support the principle that "Brand owners want to be able to have
>clear right-of-first-refusal to
>reduce opportunities for cyber-squatting and to reduce the need for
>URS and UDRP proceedings." and I agree that it is in the interest of
>the at-large users.
>
>The devils is in the detail however. I am concern about over reaching
>their rights, by extension into combination of their trademark with
>generic words.
Indeed, and that is why we have said that there must be tight
restrictions on such use and penalties for abuse. But note that this
is only with regard to pre-launch sunrise registrations which give
the brand owner a right of first refusal. The moment after launch,
they are free to acquire those names unless someone else gets there first.
Also note that according to the base report, a registry will have the
right to include such combinations if it wishes. What the minority
opinion adds is that all registries should allow it, in theory,
reducing the amount of cyber-squatting, user confusion and the need
to file UDRPs and URSs.
But your point is exactly the focus of the question. Will the
benefits as noted above, be overshadowed by TM holders successfully
gaming the system?
>I can also understand multi-national trademarks, that I would assumed
>would cover most famous mark. However, I am not sure how national TM
>is going to apply. Do you mean as a TM owner in China, I have rights
>of refusal for a TLD (say .sydney) that primary market is in
>Australia?
In this context, a "multinational" trademark is a registered
trademark issued to cover more than one country. Examples are a
Benelux TM which covers Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, and
Community Trade Mark (CTM) which is valid across the European Union.
Regarding a .sydney TLD, the registry will have the right to restrict
which trademarks that it allows in its sunrise and in this case might
restrict based on geographic area - See item 5.2 (ii)
Alan
>-James Seng
_______________________________________________
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