RE: [gnso-sti] Updated Strawman Proposal for Trademark Clearinghouse
- To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] Updated Strawman Proposal for Trademark Clearinghouse
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:26:50 -0500
Since no one else has replied, I will take a stab.
At 29/11/2009 10:26 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
Sorry for the fragmented e-mail, but I do not understand this statement:
TC may provide post launch IP Claims Service as a separate
nonexclusive service, with implementation details left to Staff to
address possible monopoly and competition concerns (such as making
information available to competitors); Report to indicate that
registries should consider providing post launch IP Claims
protection for common law rights if it fits the registry's purpose.
First question is how can the clearinghouse offer an IP Claims
service unless the registry also offers it? Without the registry
offering it, it is just a watch service that lets the TM owner know
that a domain name matching the trademark has been registered.
I don't think that there is any question that a registry must offer
this service, in conjunction with some entity that has a database of
TMs whose owners want to participate in a post-launch claims service.
Second question is on the last sentence about report to indicate
that registries should consider providing post launch IP claims
protection for common law rights if it first the registry's
purpose. I am not sure I understand what that means. Which report
? What does it mean "if it fits the registry's purpose"? I do not
want to see any report from us state that we believe registries
should consider anything about a post-launch IP Claims service
absent a feasibility study. I do not believe it is feasible for any
real time registry. Using words like "should consider", "best
practice" or "recommended practice" are loaded terms that imply that
a registry who does none of them is not a top tier registry and that
must be avoided.
That may have been my words (not really sure).
The "report" was the one that this group will issue.
I would support a feasibility study and one that looks in more depth
at the benefits and the downside (including chilling effect).
Speaking for myself and not At-Large, I can support making no
recommendation on this, but I would not support saying (as the first
draft strawman did) that there will NOT be a post-launch claims service.
Lastly, to the extent that any positive recommendation were to be
made, it should be worded as to indicate that a registry might want
to offer such a service as a means of differentiation (something that
ICANN generally encourages) and not to indicate whether it is top-tier or not.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only
for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain
confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error
and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the
From: owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:46 PM
To: GNSO STI
Subject: [gnso-sti] Updated Strawman Proposal for Trademark Clearinghouse
Attached for your review is the updated Strawman Proposal for
Trademark Clearinghouse that takes into account our discussions on
Senior Policy Counselor