ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-sti]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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.

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
____________


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy