RE: [gnso-sti] Comments on TC draft
- To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO STI" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] Comments on TC draft
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 22:29:18 -0500
Alan is correct on 5.2. I strongly believe that if ICANN insists on
allowing trademarks from the Benelux countries (or any other territory
that does not have substantive review for the marks within their
databases), then registries should be free to provide lesser weight, if
any, to those marks in a Sunrise or IP claim process.
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 Alan Greenberg
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 8:13 PM
To: GNSO STI
Subject: [gnso-sti] Comments on TC draft
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.