IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names  
Home | Advertise on idnforums | Premium Membership

Go Back   IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names > IDN Discussions > General Discussion

General Discussion Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 27th May 2011, 07:55 PM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1682
555 has disabled reputation
GAC comments on the Applicant Guidebook (April 15th, 2011 version)

http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-g...26may11-en.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 27th May 2011, 08:44 PM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1682
555 has disabled reputation
Re: GAC comments on the Applicant Guidebook (April 15th, 2011 version)

From what i see there is alot where as it states "ICANN has accepted" (Partially or in full leveled with GAC's recommendations) , Several issues are no longer mentioned and that with the IETF sending the DNAME draft to the IESG* is only further showing things are getting wrapped up and hopefully June is looking stronger then ever for a final approval of the new gtld process.

IESG:
The IESG is responsible for technical management of IETF activities and the Internet standards process. It administers the process according to the rules and procedures that have been ratified by the ISOC trustees [see RFC 2026/BCP 9, The Internet Standards Process]. The IESG is directly responsible for the actions associated with entry into and movement along the Internet "standards track," including final approval of specifications as Internet Standards.

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/

Last edited by 555; 27th May 2011 at 08:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 28th May 2011, 12:14 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Golden West
Posts: 921
iTrader: (0)
Rep Power: 3243
Avtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the rough
Re: GAC comments on the Applicant Guidebook (April 15th, 2011 version)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 555 View Post
...
and hopefully June is looking stronger then ever for a final approval of the new gtld process.
I agree; this document is very good news.

Now for a bit of trademark trivia, of interest to those who have followed the .рф saga.

From the GAC comments:

Quote:
There remain, however, five significant GAC proposals in the GAC’s advice where the Board and the GAC
to date have been unable to reach agreement, namely:
i. The IP claims and sunrise services should include exact matches plus key terms associated
with the goods or services identified by the mark, and typographical variations identified by
the rights holder.
ii. The notification function of the Trademark Clearinghouse should continue beyond the
currently proposed 60 day period after the initial launch of each gTLD.
iii. There should be no requirement to provide evidence of use for eligibility to be included in
the Clearinghouse which would conflict with many national IP legal frameworks.
iv. The standard of proof required for the URS and the PDDRP should be reduced from “clear
and convincing evidence” to the less burdensome “preponderance of evidence”.
v. The loser pays threshold should be substantially reduced to less than 26 domain name
Point (iii) discusses a disagreement over what should be considered a trademark. This will determine which trademarks are allowed to participate in the mandatory trademark sunrise for second-level domains in the new gTLDs.

ICANN says the trademark owner has to provide evidence that the trademark has actually been used in commerce; GAC says that this is too strict.

The GAC document later says:

Quote:
The GAC maintains its advice to the Board that the requirement to provide evidence of use (iii) should
be removed because it is inconsistent with trade mark law in many jurisdictions, burdensome for
business, disproportionate and discriminatory. The GAC notes that the principal reason the Board
disagrees with the GAC's advice is that this requirement would in its view deter gaming. In view of the
Board's concern about this as an overriding risk that outweighs the concerns raised by the GAC if this
requirement were to be imposed, the GAC asks the Board to provide a written document for the GAC's
consideration by 8 June 2011, so that there is opportunity for GAC review before meeting in Singapore,
which:
a) provides a detailed, evidence-supported analysis of the gaming threat at the second level;
b) explains why the Board believes that this requirement is the only practicable solution for
addressing this threat and would successfully deter the practice of gaming;
c) provides an analysis of the likely impact of this requirement on legitimate mark holders who
would be rendered ineligible for inclusion in the Clearinghouse if this requirement is imposed;
d) assesses the costs to business of having to furnish evidence of proof;
e) explains the resources which ICANN will expect to be deployed by the Clearinghouse for the
rigorous examination of evidence of use.
In other words, ICANN says that malicious parties might "game" the system, registering bogus trademarks simply in order to claim second-level domains during the trademark sunrise. GAC says "prove it" (point (a) in the quote above).

Of course, the .рф sunrise provides plenty of proof of "gaming".

Recall the dubious trademarks registered in order to grab names like секс.рф (sex.rf) during the .рф trademark sunrise. But it will be interesting to see if ICANN presents this story as evidence to the GAC, given that the Russian official in charge of the .рф launch, Andrei Kolesnikov, is (or was?) a member of ICANN's GNSO.

Perhaps ICANN would prefer not to embarrass one of its own?

Avtal
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 28th May 2011, 01:01 AM
Clotho's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 765
iTrader: (20)
Rep Power: 1458
Clotho will become famous soon enoughClotho will become famous soon enoughClotho will become famous soon enoughClotho will become famous soon enoughClotho will become famous soon enoughClotho will become famous soon enoughClotho will become famous soon enough
Re: GAC comments on the Applicant Guidebook (April 15th, 2011 version)

.рф wasn't the first time people registered bocus trademarks in order to claim domains during a sunrise period. I believe that the .eu launch was plagued by similar tactics.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 28th May 2011, 04:10 AM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4510
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: GAC comments on the Applicant Guidebook (April 15th, 2011 version)

The fact they are even questioning this shows they are clueless.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 28th May 2011, 10:37 AM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1682
555 has disabled reputation
Re: GAC comments on the Applicant Guidebook (April 15th, 2011 version)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avtal View Post
I agree; this document is very good news.
I am glad you like it, any specific concerns you previously publicly expressed that are no longer a concern because of this updated doc?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 28th May 2011, 10:30 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Golden West
Posts: 921
iTrader: (0)
Rep Power: 3243
Avtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the roughAvtal is a jewel in the rough
Re: GAC comments on the Applicant Guidebook (April 15th, 2011 version)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 555 View Post
I am glad you like it, any specific concerns you previously publicly expressed that are no longer a concern because of this updated doc?
My main concern continues to be the aliasing of IDN.com to IDN.com-in-IDN. The mandatory trademark sunrise still looks like the biggest threat to aliasing. The GAC comments are somewhat reassuring, because the GAC is beginning to sound more reasonable about trademarks.

I'll be interested to see ICANN's next draft of the Applicant Guidebook, which is due on May 30 (which is a public holiday in the US, by the way).

Thanks for asking.

Avtal

P.S. I am continuing to acquire IDN.com domains.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 29th May 2011, 12:07 AM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1682
555 has disabled reputation
Re: GAC comments on the Applicant Guidebook (April 15th, 2011 version)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avtal View Post
My main concern continues to be the aliasing of IDN.com to IDN.com-in-IDN. The mandatory trademark sunrise still looks like the biggest threat to aliasing.
I found two mentions for the words "second level" in the GAC document.

The first mention explains that since the requirement to provide evidence of use from ICANN is going to help prevent gaming of the system, the GAC is asking ICANN to show how it prevents gaming.

The second mention is below and i think is showing that it is up to the candidate and in the case of existing registry there isn't much choice left to the candidate (If anyone really insists believing afilias or PIR are a mere new gtld 'candidate'), as anything that is registered must 'act' as one, the internationalized and ASCII variants of whichever specific existing tld you have in mind.


1. With regard to the issue of non-exact matches (i), the GAC notes that the Board’s principal
argument against acceptance of the GAC’s advice is that the automation of the TM Claims and
sunrise services would not allow the inclusion of non-exact matches. The GAC therefore
recommends that the request for proposal (RFP) that ICANN will issue to potential Clearinghouse
providers includes a requirement that the candidate assess whether domain names that include a
mark at the beginning or the end of an applied for second level domain could be included in the
services.
Secondly, the GAC advises the Board to direct the post-launch review to establish whether
the automated system should be enhanced to include key terms associated with the goods or
services identified by the mark, and typographical variations identified by the rights holder.


Like always, it's all irrelevant to the outcome which was pretty much set many years ago, we just starting to see more signals it is exactly what it seemed.

Last edited by 555; 29th May 2011 at 12:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 08:03 PM.

Site Sponsors
Your ad here
buy t-shirt
מחיר הזהב

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright idnforums.com 2005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54