[bc-gnso] Update from Toronto on improvements to Rights Protection Mechanisms
Here's an update from Toronto on suggested improvements to Rights Protection Mechanisms At a meeting today between the ICANN Board and Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG), we presented a list of improvements needed for RPMs in new gTLDs. This list started with the BC's Feb-2012 Letter to ICANN, with a change the IPC requested for the do-not-register mechanism. Improvements and Enhancements to the RPMs for new gTLDs, as jointly Agreed by BC and IPC: 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period.. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. 8. Expand TM claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. The ISPs are the third party in our CSG, and gave this statement of support: The ISP Constituency; - endorses the intent and critical importance of preventing fraudulent registrations and reducing costs of defensive measures; - agrees that the rights protection mechanisms currently in the Guidebook are insufficient to meet these goals; and - wishes to remain neutral on the specific Rights Protection Mechanisms necessary to achieve those goals. After we presented this list, the Board had dialogue with CSG members. Some notable excerpts below: >>MIKE SILBER: THANKS, STEVE. I'M VERY PLEASED TO SEE SOME OF THESE >>SUGGESTIONS, AND I THINK THAT TO SOME EXTENT WE HAVEN'T SEEN ENOUGH FOR A >>SIMPLE COST EFFECTIVE PROTECTION FOR RIGHTS HOLDER AT THE SECOND LEVEL WHICH >>MEANS THE PROGRAM BRINGING INNOVATION DOESN'T AT THE SAME TIME AFFECT >>NEGATIVELY EXISTING RIGHTS HOLDERS. THAT'S NOT THE INTENTION OF THE PROGRAM, >>NOR IS IT THE INTENTION AS I'VE HEARD A NUMBER OF TIMES TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO >>BUILD A BUSINESS MODEL BASED ON DEFENSIVE REGISTRATIONS. THAT BEING SAID, THERE IS A PERCEPTION IN SOME PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY AND IT SEEMS TO HAVE SOME FACTUAL BASIS OF EVERY TIME THERE IS A COMPROMISE, RIGHTS HOLDERS THEN ASK FOR AN ADDITIONAL SET OF PROTECTIONS, FURTHER PROTECTIONS. SO THERE'S DISCUSSION. THERE'S AGREEMENT. THERE'S A POSITION THAT'S DEVELOPED ON SOME COMPROMISE BASIS AT POINT A, AND THEN THE PUSHBACK COMES AND THE REQUEST IS MOVED TO POINT B. … >>FADI CHEHADE: I'M NEW TO THIS SO I WILL PLEAD IGNORANCE. WAS THIS CONSENSUS >>DEVELOPED LIKE THIS AND DELIVERED TO ICANN PRIOR TO THIS MORNING? >>STEVE METALITZ: NO. WE'VE FINALIZED THIS LIST LAST NIGHT. >>FADI CHEHADE: OKAY. SO I DON'T NEED TO GO ASK MY STAFF WHY I HAVEN'T SEEN THE >>CONSENSUS BEFORE (at that point we could have reminded the Board that the BC submitted this list in Feb-2012 (attached) and presented elements of it during the Dakar, Costa Rica, and Prague meetings. But we let it go…) Several companies went to the mic to describe why they needed RPM improvements in order to protect their customers from fraud and abuse: Coca-Cola, Travelers Insurance, Facebook, Mark Monitor, NBA, etc. That's been a consistent message from the BC, as distinct from the IPC's message about protecting brands. Nonetheless, one Board member remarked: >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: I WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT CAME TO MIND OF THE >>DIFFERENT INTERVENTIONS ON THE MIC. I WELCOME VERY, VERY MUCH THE SHIFT IN >>LANGUAGE THAT IS HAPPENING HERE BECAUSE THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY >>COCA-COLA, GE AND SO ON ARE NOT TRADEMARK PROTECTION ISSUES PER SE. THEY ARE >>CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES. THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT SHIFT. I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IT BECAUSE SOLVING CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES IS NOT DONE EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH TRADEMARK PROTECTIONS. THE COMPONENT OF IT IS TRADEMARK PROTECTION. BUT I THINK WE HAVE REACHED A POINT NOW IN ORDER TO HELP FADI MAKE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED RIGHT NOW AND WHAT NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD. I WONDER WHETHER WE HAVEN'T REACHED THE THRESHOLD WHEREBY WE SHOULD SERIOUSLY DISCUSS HOW TO COLLABORATE AND USE THE ICANN COMMUNITY TO HANDLE BETTER THE TREATMENT OF ABUSE. HE HAS PUT AN EMPHASIS ON COMPLIANCE WHICH IS A GENERAL ISSUE. BUT THE WHOLE ISSUE OF RAPID RESPONSE WHEN THERE IS AN ABUSE -- I MEAN, THE EXAMPLE OF NBA OR OTHERS, SPOTTING ABUSE, HAVING WAYS TO TRACK THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRADEMARK. AND I FULLY AGREE WITH COKE, THE SOLUTION CANNOT BE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE AND COSTLY TRADEMARK DEFENSIVE REGISTRATIONS. SO WE SHOULD PROBABLY SEPARATE THE TWO. Attachment:
BC request for implementation improvements.pdf
|