NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:00:05 +0900
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (4089 bytes) , text/html (11 kB)
Hi Kathy,

I think it would make sense to have a confcall from NCSG, with the this
review team. I think that any feedback should be reinforced by filling the
online questionnaire too.

Best,

Rafik

2016-04-06 0:22 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hi All,
> Wendy Seltzer and I had a meeting with the Trademark Clearinghouse
> Independent Review Team (a fancy name for one person) in Marrakech and
> raised issues of concern, including:
>
> - current over-expansion of the Trademark Clearinghouse (it is accepting
> applications it should not),
> - current abuse of the Trademark Notice process (it should never become
> permanent or there will be a permanent "chilling effect" on registrants;
> the compromise and balance was a "short-term Trademark Notice" -- never an
> agreement for permanent), and
> - never-ending pressure to extend the Trademark Clearinghouse and
> Trademark Notice to "legacy gTLDs" of .com, .org, .net -- despite that
> these mechanisms were specially created only for the New gTLDs and there is
> no reason or rationale to extend them (and such an extension would come
> with huge costs to speech and fair use).
>
>
>
> *But we also told him that others in NCSG might want to meet with him. Do
> you have issues/concerns - should we meet with him together?  Feel free to
> write to me privately or publicly and we'll organize a group as needed... *
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] FW: TMCH Independent Review Questionnaire Now
> Available
> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 13:59:40 +0000
> From: Maryam Bakoshi <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Maryam Bakoshi <[log in to unmask]>
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> Dear SO/AC leaders,
>
>
>
> To follow up on our previous message sent prior to ICANN 55, we wanted to
> thank all those who reached out and met with the Trademark Clearinghouse
> (TMCH) Independent Review Team to provide input on this study.
>
>
>
> We are continuing with outreach and stakeholder discussions, and as part
> of this work, Analysis Group has developed a questionnaire to assess the
> opinions of various groups that interact with either all or some of the
> TMCH services. Given that feedback from interested stakeholders is
> extremely valuable to this review, we would greatly appreciate your
> assistance in helping us promote the TMCH questionnaire. Therefore, it
> would be fantastic if you could share the following link (
> <http://www.analysisgroup.com/icann-trademark-clearinghouse>
> http://www.analysisgroup.com/icann-trademark-clearinghouse/) via one or
> more of your communication channels (website, blog, e-mail, bulletin board,
> newsletter etc.) and encourage your members to complete the questionnaire.
>
>
>
> As noted previously, ICANN is conducting an independent review of the
> TMCH, which was recommended by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in
> 2011 (see
> https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may11-en.pdf).
> The purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the TMCH in
> combination with the areas that the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
> specified for review, which include: (1) handling of non-exact matches to
> trademarks, (2) extension of the Trademark Claims notifications, and (3)
> impacts of the Claims services on the commercial watch services market.
>
>
>
> This is intended as an informational study to support discussions on
> related Right Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) activities, such as the work of
> the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT)
> and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) review of all RPMs in
> all gTLDs Policy Development Process (PDP).
>
>
>
> Thank you again for taking the time to consider our request, and please
> let us know if you have any questions that we can help address.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> *Antonietta Mangiacotti*
>
> Research Assistant
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> <[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
> Office: 310.578.8903
>
> Mobile: 310.795.8543
>
>
>


ATOM RSS1 RSS2