New gTLDs: Trademark Clearinghouse (10\/09\/12) Adopted and Submitted by ALAC<\/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
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\u00a0other 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
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\u00a0sunrise 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
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
\u2022 any claims alleging ownership of intellectual property rights made by any bidder or bidders [for TMCH] responding to the RFI, including but not limited to claims of copyright in data or compilations of data, \u00a0patents, trademarks or trade secrets; and
\n\u2022 any analysis regarding validity of these claims.<\/p><\/div>\n
Regarding this item, to the extent that bidders made claims of ownership of intellectual property rights associated with the proposed operation of the Trademark Clearinghouse, those materials are subject to the same conditions of non-\u00addisclosure identified in conjunction with Documents on cost and financial models regarding the operation of TMCH. Regarding claims of ownership of intellectual property rights arising out of the operation of TMCH are being negotiated and will be published in the finalized agreement later.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\u2022 whether ICANN is developing necessary intellectual property policy in decision-making or contract negotiation.<\/p>\n
ALAC would further like to advise that ICANN needs to implement a thoughtful and comprehensive intellectual property policy in which public interest is properly secured. In this regard, IETF’s intellectual property policy sets a good example.<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
New gTLDs: Trademark Clearinghouse (10\/09\/12) Adopted and Submitted by ALAC 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1,4,8],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/760"}],"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=760"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/760\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":761,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/760\/revisions\/761"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}