Intellectual Property Constituency: Difference between revisions
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
* 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 recommend 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 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 recommend 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 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> | * 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> | ||
===.com Renewal=== | |||
In August, 2012, 3 of [[ICANN]]'s Constituencies ([[ALAC]], [[GNSO]] [[Business Constituency]], [[GNSO]] [[Intellectual Property Constituency]]) sent a letter to the 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 ICANNs Closed Door Verisign Com Contract Renewal, DomainNameWire.com]</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||