3,197
edits
Changes
PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (view source)
Revision as of 20:03, 6 December 2021
, 2 years ago→Final Report
The Working Group's final report was issued in November 2020.<ref name="1finalrep">[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/153518256/Phase%201%20Final%20Report%20on%20the%20Review%20of%20All%20Rights%20Protection%20Mechanisms%20in%20All%20gTLDs%20Policy%20Development%20Process.pdf PDP-RPM - Phase 1 Final Report], November 24, 2020</ref> The final report contained thirty-five recommendations, with associated "implementation guidance" for new policies or modifications to existing procedures.<ref name="1finalrep" /> The recommendations dealt mainly with the URS, Trademark Clearinghouse, and Sunrise and trademark claims periods for new gTLDs, with a single recommendation pertaining to the [[Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure]].<ref name="1finalrep" />
The Working Group's final report was issued in November 2020.<ref name="1finalrep">[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/153518256/Phase%201%20Final%20Report%20on%20the%20Review%20of%20All%20Rights%20Protection%20Mechanisms%20in%20All%20gTLDs%20Policy%20Development%20Process.pdf PDP-RPM - Phase 1 Final Report], November 24, 2020</ref> The final report contained thirty-five recommendations, with associated "implementation guidance" for new policies or modifications to existing procedures.<ref name="1finalrep" /> The recommendations dealt mainly with the URS, Trademark Clearinghouse, and Sunrise and trademark claims periods for new gTLDs, with a single recommendation pertaining to the [[Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure]].<ref name="1finalrep" />
'''Recommendation Summary Tables'''
'''Recommendation Summary Table'''
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
| Individual Proposal #2 from the Initial Report
| Individual Proposal #2 from the Initial Report
| Public comment revealed broad support for Individual Proposal #2, with preference given to the second approach suggested within the proposal - this recommendation was generated to put that proposal forward as a community- and WG-supported recommendation.<br />
| Public comment revealed broad support for Individual Proposal #2, with preference given to the second approach suggested within the proposal - this recommendation was generated to put that proposal forward as a community- and WG-supported recommendation.<br />
|-
! TMCH<br />
! 1 - Clarify the scope and applicability of the TMCH in accordance with agreed policy principles: only registered or otherwise validated word marks are eligible; geographical indicators, regional appellations, and other protection designations of origin or source are not eligible unless they are also registered marks; and TMCH validation providers that also provide services related to non-registered trademarks must maintain those other forms of IP in a separate database
! Individual Proposals #4 and #5 from the Initial Report
! Public comments received regarding the individual proposals led the WG to believe that the TMCH procedures, and any subsequent Applicant Guidebook, should specify the listed policy principles.
|-
| TMCH
| 2 - Maintain the following status quo rules: allow trademark owners to submit up to 50 "previously abused domain name labels" in association with a listed trademark; require an exact match with the word mark for trademark claims during the Trademark Claims period of a new gTLD; and allow trademark holders of "dictionary terms" to make Sunrise registrations or make claims during the Trademark Claims period of any new gTLD, regardless of the relation of the gTLD to the category of goods or services in which the word mark is registered
| Initial Report TMCH Recommendation #1<br />
| In the absence of wide support in the public comments for amendments to these rules, the recommendation is to leave them as is.
|-
| TMCH
| 3 - The TMCH Validation Provider should be primarily responsible for educating rights-holders, domain name registrants, and potential registrants about its service: IRT to assist with enhancing existing educational materials
| Individual Proposal #1 from the Initial Report<br />
| Positive public response to the individual proposal led to the development of this recommendation
|-
| TMCH
| 4 - TMCH database provider should be contractually bound to maintain, at minimum, industry-standard levels of redundancy and uptime
| Individual Proposal #6 from the Initial Report
| Wide support for this proposal in the public comments.<br />
|}
|}
==References==
==References==