RE: [gnso-sti] Updated Strawman Proposal for Trademark Clearinghouse

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.
Alan


> 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 
> original message.
>
> 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
>
> Dear All,
>
> Attached for your review is the updated Strawman Proposal for 
> Trademark Clearinghouse that takes into account our discussions on 
> today's call.
> Best Regards,
>
> Margie
>
> _____________
> Margie Milam
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN
> ____________