Intellectual Property Constituency: Difference between revisions
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* [[Flip Petillion]] (Europe), GNSO Council Representative | * [[Flip Petillion]] (Europe), GNSO Council Representative | ||
* [[John McElwaine]] (North America), GNSO Council Representative | * [[John McElwaine]] (North America), GNSO Council Representative | ||
* [[ | * [[Jan Janssen]] Participation Coordinator | ||
=== <br> IPC Council === | === <br> IPC Council === | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
==Position Statements on ICANN Policy Issues== | ==Position Statements on ICANN Policy Issues== | ||
The Intellectual Property Constituency provides the position statements and the recommendations of its members for virtually every [[ICANN]] policy issue. In | The Intellectual Property Constituency provides the position statements and the recommendations of its members for virtually every [[ICANN]] policy issue. | ||
In 2021: | |||
* Civility Pledge (November 2021) | |||
* IPC Position Paper on Accuracy of WHOIS Data (August 2021) | |||
In 2012: | |||
* the Intellectual Property Constituency sent a letter to ICANN organization complaining that the organization held its renewal talks with [[Verisign]] behind closed doors and the result is that there are no [[Whois|Thick Whois]] requirements for the .com TLD.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/08/21/constituencies-blast-icanns-closed-door-verisign-com-contract-renewal/ Constituencies Blast ICANN's Closed Door Verisign Com Contract Renewal, DomainNameWire.com]</ref> | |||
In 2010, IPC submitted its position papers regarding: | In 2010, IPC submitted its position papers regarding: | ||
* The Procedure for Board Seat 13- IPC did not object | * The Procedure for Board Seat 13- IPC did not object to the timetable, however with regards to the subject matter of leaving all the other issues related to the selection of Board Seat to be decided by the Contracted Party House, IPC requested a parity for the Non-contracted Party House. According to IPC, the Non-contracted Party House should also be allowed to decide how to fill Board seat 14 the following year and shouldn't be required to follow the strategy of the Contracted Party House for seat 13. The constituency emphasized that allowing each House to decide separately how to fill a seat on the ICANN Board is a positive improvement that paved the way to remove party dominance in a contractual relationship with ICANN regarding GNSO's selection of board members. <ref>[http://ipconstituency.org/PDFs/2010_Feb18_Comments_on_procedure_for_Board_Seat_13.pdf GNSO Operating Procedures on the 2010 Selection Process for ICANN Board Seat 13]</ref> | ||
* Its Comments for ICANN on Expressions of Interest- IPC strongly expressed its concern regarding ICANN's proposal to implement new [[gTLD]]s without addressing the major issues such as the rights protection, economic impact of new gTLDs, malicious conduct, security and stability (root scaling) and neutral integration, ways on how to solve string contention, the need to impose restrictions to prevent speculation/gaming of Expression of Interest (EOI) etc. IPC also commented that there should be plans to implement effective strategies to protect rights | * Its Comments for ICANN on Expressions of Interest- IPC strongly expressed its concern regarding ICANN's proposal to implement new [[gTLD]]s without addressing the major issues such as the rights protection, economic impact of new gTLDs, malicious conduct, security and stability (root scaling) and neutral integration, ways on how to solve string contention, the need to impose restrictions to prevent speculation/gaming of Expression of Interest (EOI), etc. IPC also commented that there should be plans to implement effective strategies to protect rights and prevent trademark abuses. IPC strongly recommends to ICANN that these major issues should be resolved first before opening any EOI.<ref>[http://ipconstituency.org/PDFs/2010_Jan27_IPC_EOI_Comments.PDF Comments for ICANN Expression of Interest]</ref> | ||
* Its Comments to the Recommendations of the [[Special Trademark Issues Review Team]] ([[STI]])- IPC reiterated that trademarks must be sufficiently protected with efficient and fair mechanisms to avoid court litigation that is burdensome to all involved parties.The Constituency recommended that new gTLD operators should be given the freedom to go beyond the minimum level of protection within | * Its Comments to the Recommendations of the [[Special Trademark Issues Review Team]] ([[STI]])- IPC reiterated that trademarks must be sufficiently protected with efficient and fair mechanisms to avoid court litigation that is burdensome to all involved parties. The Constituency recommended that new gTLD operators should be given the freedom to go beyond the minimum level of protection within appropriate circumstances and ICANN should that a periodic review of the efficiency of the implementation of new gTLDs.<ref>[http://ipconstituency.org/PDFs/2010_Jan26_IPC_STI_Comments.PDF Comments to the Recommendations of Special Trademark Issues]</ref> | ||
In 2005: | |||
In | * IPC White Paper on DN Expansion (June 2005) | ||
In 2000: | |||
* Position Paper on gTLD issues (March 4, 2000) | |||
* Position Paper on WHOIS issues (March 3, 2000) | |||
* Position Paper on ccTLD issues (March 1, 2000) | |||
* Position Paper on Famous Marks | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||