Changes

* 9th March, 2011--Observation of Arbitration and Mediation Center of WIPO on scorecard of GAC on protection of rights and [[ICANN]] Board’s corresponding questions<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/icann090311.pdf Observation of Arbitration and Mediation Center of WIPO on scorecard of GAC on protection of rights and ICANN Board’s corresponding questions]</ref>

* 9th March, 2011--Observation of Arbitration and Mediation Center of WIPO on scorecard of GAC on protection of rights and [[ICANN]] Board’s corresponding questions<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/icann090311.pdf Observation of Arbitration and Mediation Center of WIPO on scorecard of GAC on protection of rights and ICANN Board’s corresponding questions]</ref>

'''Trademark Clearinghouse''': Expanding the Clearinghouse data scopes will make it difficult for [[ICANN]] to ensure proper safeguard to clearinghouse operators and uses of various data held by them. Data sources are very easily available and any expansion must avoid the loss of individuals and SMEs, who are not expected to use clearinghouse data or who are not aware of it. Increasing the scope of Clearinghouse date will lead to costly complexities which will arise to operate it.  

'''Trademark Clearinghouse''': Expanding the Clearinghouse data scopes will make it difficult for [[ICANN]] to ensure proper safeguarding of clearinghouse operators and data. Data sources are very easily available and any expansion must avoid the loss of individuals and SMEs, who are not expected to use clearinghouse data or who are not aware of it. Increasing the scope of Clearinghouse date will lead to costly complexities.

'''Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)''': The [[URS]] was always for prima facie, so operating as a substitute of UDRP should be avoided. [[ICANN]] must clarify what should be the certification criteria to ground the examiners in trademark practice and law. [[ICANN]] must also clarify whether an examiner should be internal or external with respect to the provider. Track record of the providers in relevant jurisprudence training must be considered.  

'''Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)''': The [[URS]] was always for prima facie, so operating as a substitute of the [[UDRP]] should be avoided. [[ICANN]] must clarify what should be the certification criteria to ground the examiners in trademark practice and law. [[ICANN]] must also clarify whether an examiner should be internal or external with respect to the provider. Track record of the providers in relevant jurisprudence training must be considered.  

'''Post Delegation Dispute Resolution (PDDRP)''': The resolve of [[ICANN]] to limit [[PDDRP]]’s scope is a big task for this sort of [[RPM]]. The [[PDDRP]] provides means to owners of the trademark so that they address the breach without much difficulty. They don’t need to go through costly, time consuming and repetitive mechanisms.  

'''Post Delegation Dispute Resolution (PDDRP)''': The resolve of [[ICANN]] to limit [[PDDRP]]’s scope is a big task for this sort of [[RPM]]. The [[PDDRP]] provides a means to owners of the trademark so that they address the breach without much difficulty. They don’t need to go through costly, time consuming and repetitive mechanisms.  

* 2nd December, 2010--WIPO’s comments of Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook of [[ICANN]]<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/icann021210.pdf WIPO’s comments of Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook of ICANN]</ref>

* 2nd December, 2010--WIPO’s comments of Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook of [[ICANN]]<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/icann021210.pdf WIPO’s comments of Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook of ICANN]</ref>

The Center noted that many observer organization’s representatives and delegations have expressed that intellectual property rights in [[DNS]] (Domain Name System) needs protection, especially with respect to the DNS expansion which has been planned by the [[ICANN]]. Various delegations have raised this concern and they feel that [[ICANN]] should review and amend the [[UDRP]] i.e. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy initiated by WIPO. The chair said that the WIPO Secretariat’s contribution in the field of Internet Domain Names was endorsed and supported by the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT). The chair also requested to submit a report on various developments at SCT’s next session.

The Center noted that many observer organizations' representatives and delegations have expressed that intellectual property rights in [[DNS]] (Domain Name System) need protection, especially with respect to the DNS expansion which has been planned by the [[ICANN]]. Various delegations have raised this concern and they feel that [[ICANN]] should review and amend the [[UDRP]] i.e. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy initiated by WIPO. The chair said that the WIPO Secretariat’s contribution in the field of Internet Domain Names was endorsed and supported by the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT). The chair also requested to submit a report on various developments at SCT’s next session.

* 21st July, 2010-- WIPO’s observation about [[ICANN]]’s Brussels meeting<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/icann210710.pdf WIPO’s observation about ICANN’s Brussels meeting]</ref>

* 21st July, 2010-- WIPO’s observation about [[ICANN]]’s Brussels meeting<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/icann210710.pdf WIPO’s observation about ICANN’s Brussels meeting]</ref>

It seemed that few participants were self appointed and there were conflicts of interests. Such things arise at the cost of relevant expertise favoring subjective or incidental input. WIPO believes that for a stable and long term [[DNS]] framework an informed and open dialogue is necessary and this can be supported by all the stakeholders. The dialogue’s credibility will rely on broader vision, institutional integrity and substantive relevance of the participants, no matter if they are a part of [[ICANN]]’s formal structures or not.  The expansion plan of [[DNS]] framework provides a great opportunity to enhance the responsibility of partnership and that too on safe harbors and positive norms. WIPO will always be there to contribute for the expansion of [[DNS]] framework.

It seemed that few participants were self-appointed and there were conflicts of interests. Such things arise at the cost of relevant expertise favoring subjective or incidental input. WIPO believes that for a stable and long term [[DNS]] framework, an informed and open dialogue is necessary; this must be supported by all the stakeholders. The dialogue’s credibility will rely on broader vision, institutional integrity and substantive relevance of the participants, no matter if they are a part of [[ICANN]]’s formal structures or not.  The expansion plan of the [[DNS]] framework provides a great opportunity to enhance the responsibility of partnerships. WIPO will always be there to contribute for the expansion of [[DNS]] framework.

Some other cross over communications are:

Some other cross over communications are: