Institute for Internet Policy & Law @ Beijing Normal University

At ALAC gTLD-WG meeting on Aug. 27th, I suggested that Implementation of Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) be a rolling out issue for the group to comment. It was agree by the group.

After TMCH Meeting in Brussels on August 20-21, 2012, the problems existing in the current TMCH implementation model have become widely aware in the community. Although TMCH providers is scheduled to begin operating in October (3 weeks from now), ICANN’s planned implementation models for Sunrise and Trademark claims are apparently not supported by a majority of the new gTLD applicants. The current model’s complexity, restrictions on new registries and high costs are widely criticized.

At-Large community concerns that the problems in the current model may be against the public interests for the following reasons.

1. Burdensome Cost Model to New Registries from Developing Countries

On June 1, 2012, ICANN posted a Preliminary Cost Model projecting the potential fees to be charged to TLD registries and trademark holders to fund the TMCH, i.e. upfront fees $7-10k per registry and the $150 per trademark were “upper bands” of the fees.

Since the proposed cost model was strongly disputed at Brussels Meeting, the ICANN-delegated providers are now open to considering
other models including a transaction model whereby there would be a fixed set up fee paid by each registry (for each TLD) and a variable transaction based fee.

The proposed fees are believed expensive to most new gTLD registries. For new registries from the developing countries that have just paid off high application fees, it would become extraordinary burdensome for their future operation. The little-used Application Support Program is unlikely to offer any help as well.

At-Large community therefore suggests ICANN consider setting up Implementation Support Program to help the new gTLD registries from developing countries to handle the complicated and expensive TMCH implementation.

2. One Set Does Fit All

The current TMCH model uniformly applies to all the gTLD registries, irrespective of their difference. As a result, there may be a couple of registries obliged to pay for the TMCH services that are not need by them. In a hypothetical case, say “.IGO” for intergovernmental international organizations’ names only, the registry has to pay for TMCH services although no trademark will be eligible for registration under .IGO because IGO names are not “trademarkable” under the Paris  Convention (with more than 100 member states).

On the other hand, uniform TMCH may not provide the tailored services that are really needed by the registries. For example, those GEO TLDs or IDN TLDs would like to restrict the Sunrise Period to only those rights holders having trademark registrations in their geo-regions or character set. But they would not be able to do so without setting up a completely separate process with the TMCH at additional cost or doing by themselves. This would additionally burdensome to registries, particularly from developing countries.

It seems that the ICANN drafted model as proposed / planned potentially limits market flexibility for variations of approaches to
sunrise and therefore drives the (per TLD) work on custom sunrises back to the TMCH. Instead,  more open and flexible model deserves further exploration.

3. Not Actively Soliciting Consensus

Since the implementation will be very imminent and there still lacks of consensus in a variety of stakeholder groups on almost all aspects of the implementation model, At-Large community seriously concerns whether it would be implemented timely for the new gTLD program. Since the much-debatable Brussels meeting, there is no follow-up meeting scheduled as planned.

ALAC therefore advises the Board to take immediate action to ensure that ICANN is seen as moving forward with the TMCH in public interests and with community consensus.

4. Lack of Transparency

ICANN so far refuses to disclose a series of key documents on selectionof TMCH provider and TMCH implementation model, including Executed contracts for the provision of Trademark Clearinghouse services and Documents on cost and financial models regarding the operation of the Trademark Clearinghouse.

ALAC therefore request the documents be timely release to enable the community to access the critical information on TMCH.

8月31日，美国新罕布什尔大学法学院院长John T. Broderick, Jr.教授、副院长Karen J. Borgstrom教授和富兰克林皮尔斯知识产权中心主任Mary Wong教授一行三人访问了互联网政策与法律研究中心。主任薛虹教授与之进行了两轮会谈。新罕布什尔大学法学院是全美最好的知识产权院校之一，其知识产权项目在全美的法学院中尤其突出。

美方院长对北师大的学科实力表示认可，表示愿与我中心合作，为学院学生提供中美优质法律教育资源。双方还就在知识产权、国际刑法等领域合作的具体方式、执行程序、培养项目等问题进行了磋商，达成了初步的合作意向。会谈最后，赵秉志院长向来宾赠送了法学两院的纪念品。

新罕布什尔大学法学院的来访推动了我院法学教育尤其是知识产权学科的国际化，增加了我院及互联网政策与法律研究中心在国际上的知名度，并且为法学两院青年学子提供了更多教育资源和国际机会。

2012年8月 14日至19日，由韩国信息安全局（KISA）主办的第十四届亚太新一代互联网青年精英会议大会（APNG）在韩国首尔梨花女子大学召开。我院互联网政策与法律研究中心主任薛虹教授受到了主办方的诚挚邀请并指派中心硕士研究生邱江涛作为代表参加了会议。邱江涛同学在会议上针对留守儿童的远程教育以及互联网时代远程教育的版权保护问题发表了演讲。

此次会议为期四天，有来自亚太地区20多个国家的80余名青年参加，并邀请了众多来自韩国互联网协会、日本东京大学、互联网数字与地址分配机构（ICANN）、韩国信息安全局（KISA）等机构的知名专家和学者进行演讲，其内容涉及互联网的发展、政策、法律、前沿技术等众多领域。在青年论坛环节，来自各国的硕士和博士就自己在该领域的研究成果与大家进行了分享，专家们对青年学子的研究和学术演讲进行了指导。本次会议为知名学者和青年学子之间搭建了一个良好的沟通平台，为青年学子在互联网领域的研究提供了丰富的国际资源。

来自通过此次会议，扩大了我院互联网政策与法律研究中心的国际学术影响，丰富了学生的国际视野，提高了学生的外语水平，客观上为我校学生参与国际事务提供了实践的机会，对于在国际上扩大我校、我学院、我中心的知名度有着积极的作用。

ICANN’s 44th meeting was held on June 23-28, 2012 in Prague, Czech Republic. This was another multi-stakeholder international gather for ICANN, attracting a number of international organizations, governments, civil society groups and businesses. During the meeting, a series of high-profile sessions on Internet governance, New gTLDs Program, Trademark measures, etc. were held. Lei Liu, the doctoral candidate of IIPL，participated the meeting as a fellow selected by ICANN Fellowship Program.

One of interesting decision announced by ICANN is the appointment of Trademark Clearinghouse providers, namely IBM and Deloitte respectively responsible for database technical management and data management. Both are new gTLD applicants and both based in Belgium. The whole selection process was completely black-boxed and staff-driven. Many community-based bidders were ignored.

Another issue interesting is ICANN’s handing with so-called “Academy Training Proposal.” Despite the declaration from the staff that they had been following the discussion and drafting of this proposal in at-large community for more than one year, they were not aware of draft curriculum and setting arrangement  that had been online for quite a long time. It seems that a new and separate pilot program would be run by ICANN in Toronto, although the leading staff would be willing to listen to the community inputs still.

During the meeting, Lei Liu took part in many sessions and discussions with the other 21 fellows from 17 countries around the world. As newcomers, the fellows showed extremely high enthusiasm in ICANN’s business. It is believed that today’s newcomers will play a more important role in the future.

2012年5月31日，由北京师范大学互联网政策与法律研究中心主办、中国互联网信息中心、政务和公益机构域名注册管理中心、北龙中网等多家单位协办的“《十字路口的国际知识产权法》首发仪式暨域名领域法律问题国际研讨会”在1824高铭暄学术报告厅隆重举行。

薛虹教授的著作《十字路口的国际知识产权法》由法律出版社于2012年4月出版。薛虹教授首先简要的介绍了这本专著，指出这本书采用了全新的视角和最新的资料，剖析了国际知识产权法的最新发展，并重构了有关的法学知识体系。薛虹教授对本次会议进行了总结，指出互联网必将深刻的改变法学学科的发展和研究方式、指出2012年是互联网极不平凡的一年，新形态的法律和法学将在网络时代发展和成熟，并导致革命性的变革。

北京师范大学法学院院长、刑事法律科学研究院院长赵秉志教授、互联网政策与法律研究中心主任薛虹教授、互联网名称与数字地址分配机构(ICANN)总裁兼CEO罗德贝克思多先生(Mr. Rod Beckstrom)、中编办电子政务中心主任伏宁先生、工信部崔淑田处长、中国互联网信息中心首席科学家、北龙中网董事长毛伟博士、政务和公益机构域名注册管理中心主任宋庆先生、万网总裁张向东先生等嘉宾出席了会议。

开幕式由薛虹教授主持。赵秉志院长致辞，赵院长向与会者介绍了我院的基本情况，对会议的召开表示了祝贺并表示了他对互联网治理领域的关注与期望。之后，赵秉志院长代表法学院授予贝克思多先生名誉教授聘书，薛虹教授代表互联网政策与法律研究中心向与会的专家领导颁发了国际专家委员会委员的聘书，感谢与会人员对北师大法学两院工作的支持。专家们的加入充实了我院互联网治理研究领域实力，为互联网法律和知识产权法学科的进一步发展打下了坚实基础。

在研讨会环节，来自政务与公益机构域名注册管理中心的刘丽梅女士、北龙中网的冯硕女士、中国互联网信息中心的许超然先生、万网的王娟女士等代表不同单位和部门就日常工作中遇到的域名领域的相关法律问题进行了主题发言。发言主要集中在新增通用顶级域名与商标保护、中文域名管理机制、商标信息交换中心、注册商的法律责任等领域。针对这些主题发言，薛虹教授和在场专家分别进行了独到而深入的点评和讲解，为实务界和学术界相关的问题做出了很好的解答。在场相关工作者和青年学子也就自己关心的问题进行了提问。随后来自互联网名称与数字地址分配机构的罗德贝克思多先生就互联网及域名系统带给知识产权法学乃至整个法学学科的新问题作了演讲。

最后薛虹教授对与会的专家学者表示了感谢，希望他们以后能够长期支持和参与互联网法治等领域的相关工作，也对广大青年学子表达了自己的期许，希望共同促进互联网法治建设出力。

本次会议中，与会人员畅所欲言、气氛活跃而融洽，既为国内外互联网领域的专家们提供了深入探讨法律问题的机会，也加大了我院在互联网领域的学术影响力，更为互联网治理起到了积极的推动作用。