International Trade Lawmaking @ Beijing Normal University

2012年12月21日，应北京师范大学互联网政策与法律研究中心主任、法学院薛虹教授邀请，北师大法学院荣誉教授、世界经济论咨询委员会副主席、ICANN前任总裁罗德-贝克思多先生为法学院10级本科生与部分研究生讲授了网络知识产权课程。在授课前，薛虹教授接见了罗德教授一行，并与罗德教授就进一步合作进行了愉快的洽谈。薛虹教授对罗德的来访表示了欢迎，肯定了罗德教授的来访将进一步增强中心的科研实力和法学院的国际化水平。罗德教授对薛虹教授的接见和邀请表示感谢，他强调了和青年学生交流的重要性，希望以后有更多机会来访和授课。罗德-贝克思多教授还与部分法学院青年学生进行了座谈会，整个座谈过程内容丰富多彩，气氛轻松愉快，罗德-贝克思多教授丰富的人生经历和诙谐的讲话深深感染了在座的每位同学，同学们都感觉到受益匪浅。

晚上6点，在后主楼1824高铭暄学术报告厅，罗德-贝克思多教授进行了课程讲授。政务与公益机构域名注册与管理中心国际与法律部副主任（CONAC）刘丽梅女士参加了课程，并就实务中遇到的网络法律问题和同学们进行了交流。刘女士介绍了罗德先生的经历，并向同学们阐述了结合实务和前沿学习的重要性。讲座中，罗德-贝克思多教授首先提出了对未来互联网发展的几点假设，并征求了同学们的意见。针对同学们一些较好的反馈，罗德教授表示将在政策研究与制定中认真考虑吸纳。其次罗德-贝克思多教授对互联网发展的原则进行了剖析，提出了5点切实的建议，表达了对互联网的发展的厚望。罗德教授表示，网络的发展离不开大家的参与，每个人的意见对于互联网治理都很有意义。

在最后的互动交流环节，同学们就互联网的发展提出了诸多问题，包括技术发展与人际交往的平衡、大数据时代的个人隐私保护、互联网纠纷解决机制的完善等。罗德教授均做出了详尽的回答，同学们也获益良多。罗德教授还向在互动中比较积极的同学赠送了自己的著作、亚马逊畅销书《海星模式》。课程结束后，仍然有很多同学与罗德先生就互联网发展的问题进行了交流。在三个小时的课程中，罗德-贝克思多教授全部采用英文讲授，通过结合实际，使同学们了解了互联网的相关知识，感受了美国法学院的教学方式，法律英语方面也得到较大提高，整个课程在一片热烈的掌声中圆满结束！

2012年12月5日晚，应北京师范大学法学院邀请，最高人民法院政治部副主任、知识产权法问题专家罗东川法官为师大学子做了一场关于第三次著作权法修改的专题讲座。讲座由互联网政策与法律研究中心主任薛虹教授主持。寒冷的天气没有打消同学们学习的热情，学院部分本科生和研究生前往聆听，教室座无虚席。

北京师范大学法学两院自建院以来一贯注重与实务部门保持良好的沟通与合作，与最高人民法院理论法学研究所和最高法院研究室等机构更是建立了战略合作伙伴关系。罗法官的到来进一步推动了最高人民法院和北师大法学两院的友好合作关系，增强了我院互联网政策与法律研究中心的科研实力。晚上六点整，讲座准时开始。薛虹教授首先介绍了罗法官的有关情况，对罗法官的来访表示诚挚欢迎和衷心感谢。罗东川法官曾在北京市高级人民法院和最高法从事知识产权审判与研究工作，是知识产权领域的著名专家和学者型法官。罗法官于1993年参加建立中国法院最早的知识产权审判庭北京市中级人民法院知识产权审判庭，1995年任北京市第一中级人民法院知识产权审判庭副庭长，后任庭长，2000年任最高人民法院民事审判第三庭（知识产权庭）副庭长。2003年12月任最高人民法院研究室副主任，2009年兼任最高人民法院中国应法学研究所所长。现任最高人民法院政治部副主任、理论研究工作领导小组办公室主任。罗法官还担任中国审判理论研究会秘书长、中国法学会知识产权法研究会常务理事、中国知识产权研究会常务理事、中国法学会消费者权益保护法研究会常务理事、中国科技法学会理事、中国版权协会理事等社会职务。罗法官也曾获得首届全国十大人民满意的好法官、北京十大杰出青年、中国十大杰出青年提名奖、全国先进工作者、全国法院模范等 众多荣誉。对知识产权法的很多问题，罗法官都有自己独到的观点。罗法官对薛虹教授表示感谢，也很期待能多跟青年学子保持交流。在为期两个小时的讲座中，罗法官用真实的案例、具体的数据和丰富的审判实践为大家从实务工作者的角度解读了著作权法。讲座梳理了著作权制度在中国的起源、发展和完善，指出了现有著作权法律和制度面临的问题，分析了技术因素和国际化等对我国著作权制度的推动与影响，最后结合自己参与著作权法修改的专家论证咨询和多年的审判经验与同学们分享了自己的看法并进行了深入交流。

本次讲座内容丰富、形式新颖，为同学们带来了一场不同于平常的法律课。通过这次讲座，大家能够将平时在书本上学到的法律同实际紧密结合起来，真正做到学以致用。讲座在同学们热烈的掌声中圆满结束。

New gTLDs: Trademark Clearinghouse (10/09/12) Adopted and Submitted by ALAC

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.