{"id":700,"date":"2012-09-09T11:27:59","date_gmt":"2012-09-09T03:27:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/?p=700"},"modified":"2012-10-02T11:54:37","modified_gmt":"2012-10-02T03:54:37","slug":"comments-on-icann-new-gtlds-trademark-clearinghouse-implementation-plan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/?p=700","title":{"rendered":"Comments on ICANN new gTLDs Trademark Clearinghouse Implementation Plan"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>At ALAC gTLD-WG meeting on Aug. 27th, I suggested that Implementation\u00a0of Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) be a rolling out issue for the group\u00a0to comment. It was agree by the group.<\/p>\n

After TMCH Meeting in Brussels on August 20-21, 2012, the problems\u00a0existing in the current TMCH implementation model have become widely\u00a0aware in the community. Although TMCH providers is scheduled to begin\u00a0operating in October (3 weeks from now), ICANN\u2019s planned\u00a0implementation models for Sunrise and Trademark claims are apparently\u00a0not supported by a majority of the new gTLD applicants. The current\u00a0model’s complexity, restrictions on new registries and high costs are\u00a0widely criticized.<\/p>\n

At-Large community concerns that the problems in the current model may\u00a0be against the public interests for the following reasons.<\/p>\n

1. Burdensome Cost Model to New Registries from Developing Countries<\/p>\n

On June 1, 2012, ICANN posted a Preliminary Cost Model projecting the\u00a0potential fees to be charged to TLD registries and trademark holders\u00a0to fund the TMCH, i.e. upfront fees $7-10k per registry and the $150\u00a0per trademark were \u201cupper bands\u201d of the fees.<\/p>\n

Since the proposed cost model was strongly disputed at Brussels\u00a0Meeting, the ICANN-delegated providers are now open to considering
\nother models including a transaction model whereby there would be a\u00a0fixed set up fee paid by each registry (for each TLD) and a variable\u00a0transaction based fee.<\/p>\n

The proposed fees are believed expensive to most new gTLD registries.\u00a0For new registries from the developing countries that have just paid\u00a0off high application fees, it would become extraordinary burdensome\u00a0for their future operation. The little-used Application Support\u00a0Program is unlikely to offer any help as well.<\/p>\n

At-Large community therefore suggests ICANN consider setting up\u00a0Implementation Support Program to help the new gTLD registries from\u00a0developing countries to handle the complicated and expensive TMCH\u00a0implementation.<\/p>\n

2. One Set Does Fit All<\/p>\n

The current TMCH model uniformly applies to all the gTLD registries,\u00a0irrespective of their difference. As a result, there may be a couple\u00a0of registries obliged to pay for the TMCH services that are not need\u00a0by them. In a hypothetical case, say “.IGO” for intergovernmental\u00a0international organizations’ names only, the registry has to pay for\u00a0TMCH services although no trademark will be eligible for registration\u00a0under .IGO because IGO names are not “trademarkable” under the Paris \u00a0Convention (with more than 100 member states).<\/p>\n

On the other hand, uniform TMCH may not provide the tailored services\u00a0that are really needed by the registries. For example, those GEO TLDs\u00a0or IDN TLDs would like to restrict the Sunrise Period to only those\u00a0rights holders having trademark registrations in their geo-regions or\u00a0character set. But they would not be able to do so without setting up\u00a0a completely separate process with the TMCH at additional cost or\u00a0doing by themselves. This would additionally burdensome to registries,\u00a0particularly from developing countries.<\/p>\n

It seems that the ICANN drafted model as proposed \/ planned\u00a0potentially limits market flexibility for variations of approaches to
\nsunrise and therefore drives the (per TLD) work on custom sunrises\u00a0back to the TMCH. Instead, \u00a0more open and flexible model deserves\u00a0further exploration.<\/p>\n

3. Not Actively Soliciting Consensus<\/p>\n

Since the implementation will be very imminent and there still lacks\u00a0of consensus in a variety of stakeholder groups on almost all aspects\u00a0of the implementation model, At-Large community seriously concerns\u00a0whether it would be implemented timely for the new gTLD program. Since\u00a0the much-debatable Brussels meeting, there is no follow-up meeting\u00a0scheduled as planned.<\/p>\n

ALAC therefore advises the Board to take immediate action to ensure\u00a0that ICANN is seen as moving forward with the TMCH in public interests\u00a0and with community consensus.<\/p>\n

4. Lack of Transparency<\/p>\n

ICANN so far refuses to disclose a series of key documents on selectionof TMCH provider and TMCH implementation model, including\u00a0Executed\u00a0contracts\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0provision\u00a0of\u00a0Trademark\u00a0Clearinghouse\u00a0services and\u00a0Documents\u00a0on cost and\u00a0financial\u00a0models\u00a0regarding\u00a0the\u00a0operation\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Trademark\u00a0Clearinghouse.<\/p>\n

ALAC therefore request the documents be timely release to enable the community to access the critical information on TMCH.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At ALAC gTLD-WG meeting on Aug. 27th, I suggested that Implementation\u00a0of Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) be a rolling out issue for the group\u00a0to comment. It was agree by the group. After TMCH Meeting in Brussels on August 20-21, 2012, the problems\u00a0existing in the current TMCH implementation model have become widely\u00a0aware in the community. Although TMCH providers […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1,4,9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/700"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=700"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/700\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":723,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/700\/revisions\/723"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=700"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=700"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=700"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}