staff
8,858
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 37:
Line 37: + + + + + + +
→Feedback
==Feedback==
==Feedback==
In October, 2012, NTIA Assistant Secretary, [[Larry Strickling]] wrote to ICANN regarding its recent successes but also to implore it to continue to work on the Trademark Clearinghouse and the [[URS]]. Larry Strickling noted that ICANN had issued an update on the clearinghouse and a request for information searching for a URS services provider. NTIA encouraged ICANN to continue to allow stakeholders to evaluate and provide input on the the information presented by the applicants. It stressed that the URS was originally envisioned as an effective and low-cost alternative to the [[UDRP]], and encouraged ICANN to ensure that cost concerns were kept in mind throughout their evaluation process. NTIA also encouraged ICANN to not stop working on the [[Intellectual Property]] mechanisms as is, but continue to explore other ways of ensuring that trademarks and brands remain safe within the landscape of current and new TLDs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-04oct12-en Strickling to Crocker, ICANN.org]</ref>
In October, 2012, NTIA Assistant Secretary, [[Larry Strickling]] wrote to ICANN regarding its recent successes but also to implore it to continue to work on the Trademark Clearinghouse and the [[URS]]. Larry Strickling noted that ICANN had issued an update on the clearinghouse and a request for information searching for a URS services provider. NTIA encouraged ICANN to continue to allow stakeholders to evaluate and provide input on the the information presented by the applicants. It stressed that the URS was originally envisioned as an effective and low-cost alternative to the [[UDRP]], and encouraged ICANN to ensure that cost concerns were kept in mind throughout their evaluation process. NTIA also encouraged ICANN to not stop working on the [[Intellectual Property]] mechanisms as is, but continue to explore other ways of ensuring that trademarks and brands remain safe within the landscape of current and new TLDs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-04oct12-en Strickling to Crocker, ICANN.org]</ref>
===Criticisms===
Senators Patrick Leahy and Chuck Grassley and Congressional Representatives Lamar Smith and John Conyers issued an August 7 letter critizing ICANN's approach to new gTLDs. They criticized ICANN's level of New GTLD outreach, stating that "many members of the public outside the ICANN community are unaware that the New gTLD program is underway" and go on to note that those who are aware are not given adequate time and information to participate. The letter also highlighted demands from IP interests that ICANN systematically offer stronger rights protection mechanisms on the new gTLDs, such as a permanent Trademark Clearinghouse service rather than the existing policy, which only required the Clearinghouse be available the first sixty days after a registry launches.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10033-congressmen-say-new-gtlds-need-more-comments Congressmen say new gTLDs need more comments]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 August 8.</ref> It has also been revealed that the IP community would like the Trademark Clearinghouse to include exact trademark matches as well as mark+keyword records.<ref name="tonkin">[http://domainincite.com/10563-tonkin-says-better-new-gtld-trademark-protections-could-come-in-the-first-round http://domainincite.com/10563-tonkin-says-better-new-gtld-trademark-protections-could-come-in-the-first-round]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 September 24.</ref>
On September 19, 2012, Chehadé sent a letter in return, where he said explained that the 60-day period was reached through a "multi-year, extensive process with the ICANN community" and therefore would not be in ICANN's power to unilaterally extend. He also noted that the Trademark Clearinghouse is "intended to be a repository for existing legal rights, and not an adjudicator of such rights or creator of new rights. Extending the protections offered through the Trademark Clearinghouse to any form of name (such as the mark + generic term suggested in your letter) would potentially expand rights beyond those granted under trademark law and put the Clearinghouse in the role of making determinations as to the scope of particular rights."<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10538-new-icann-chief-pours-cold-water-on-new-gtld-trademark-protection-demands New ICANN chief pours cold water on new gTLD trademark protection demands]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 September 20.</ref>
According to ICANN vice chairman [[Bruce Tonkin]], if groups pushing for stronger new gTLD trademark protection mechanisms could identify five areas of consensus, at least two could be made before new gTLDs go live in 2013. According to Tonkin and Domain Incite, one area of agreement is an extension of the aforementioned Trademark Claims service, beyond the mandated sixty days. He also says that a faster and cheaper [[URS|Uniform Rapid Suspension] system could be implemented.<ref name="tonkin"></ref>
===Alternative Model===
===Alternative Model===