ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-sti]


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

[gnso-sti] Comments on TC draft

  • To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-sti] Comments on TC draft
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:12:57 -0500

Overall, a great job Margie.

We still us the term IP Claims instead of TM claims. In light of our changing the Clearing house name to Trademark Clearinghouse, we should probably use the term TM Claims or at least include a note explaining why we are not...

On page 2, the paragraph starting with "This STI alternative.." gives the impression that all RT members were working in complete isolation, which is not necessarily the case. I would suggest changing "Given the limited amount of time allocated to developing the proposal, it was not feasible for the representatives to solicit the prior approval of their stakeholder group members." to "Given the limited amount of time allocated to developing the proposal, it was not feasible for the representatives to solicit the prior approval of their stakeholder group members, although some of the representatives did significantly discuss issues with parts of their constituency/SG."

2.6 the last phrase "regardless of whether ICANN contracts with more than one TC Service Provider." is misleading. Although we definitely did say that there must be only one entity for registries to interact with, we never discussed the possibility of ICANN contracting with multiple TCs. I would use the wording "Registry should only need to connect with one centralized database to obtain the information it needs to conduct its sunrise processes or IP Claims Services, regardless of the details of the TC organization and its contract(s) with ICANN."

4.3 In the first sentence, "stings" should be "strings".

5.2 I do not believe that there was unanimous consensus on this. In particular, there was strong support for registries NOT being required to use non-reviewed (and perhaps poorly reviewed) marks in sunrises.

6.2 I am not sure we agreed that this should require active "pre-registration for a future URS" or if this is an automatic service once a TM is registered in the TC". I suggest that the description should include that "The TM could provide confirmations of TM to URS providers for a fee".

8.1 The issue of the language of the IP Claims notice was agreed upon, reference never made it into the document. I suggest "The IP Claims notice must be preferably be provided in the language used for the rest of the interaction with the registrar/registry, but at the very least in the most appropriate UN-sponsored language (as specified by the prospective registrant or registrar/registry)." As an aside, I would assume that there will always be a reference to the English language notice is that is the "definitive" one, but I assume that this will be covered by staff in the detailed implementation.


Alan


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