Page History

...

However, the At-Large community has been alarmed by what has become a veritable an environment of trademark obsession within ICANN. The original "IRT" group chartered by the Board, which shunned community participation, went far beyond reasonable trademark protections , empowering ICANN toand would have empowered ICANN to enforce protections well beyond that afforded by existing law or treaty. Extension of protection to prevent strings which were "similar" to marks, for instance, was a clear example of stepping outside of common sense and into the realm of stifling competition and choice. It is unfortunate that such anti-public-interest foolishness, attempted by the IRT but rebuffed by the STI recommendations, has crept back into the GAC Scorecard. Indeed, we find it unfortunate that such a disproportionate part of the Scorecard itself has been given to this issue, offering detailed remedies while the rest of the Scorecard deals in high-level concepts. While we share many of the GAC's concerns in this area, we believe that a sense of fair play and common sense is paramount, as well as a sense of proportion regarding Intellectual Property issues being but one part of the public interest related to Internet domains.  

In this regard, our approach to the Scorecard is mixed.

We For this reason, we support many of the Scorecard's names-protection measures:name-protection measures which are consistent with the STI consensus recommendations and even a few that go beyond.

1. All of Scorecard #6.1, including #6.1.7.1 so long as such use of the Trademark Clearinghouse does not delay registrations (#6.1.7.1)
2. Simplified complaint format (#6.2.2)
3. Decisions should not require full panels (#6.2.3)
4. Remove reference to "substantive evaluation" (#6.2.4)
5. Six month deadline for filing an appeal (#6.2.10.2)
6. A succuessful complainant should have first right of refusal for transfer (#6.2.12)

However, we draw the line at measures that are designed to be punitive to potentially legitimate strings; these are measures in the Scorecard that, in our opinion, are against the public interest and in many cases common sense. In these cases we support the ICANN Board's response:

1. Elimination of reasonable due process (#6.2.5, 6.2.9)
2. Reducing standards of proof to not require "clear and convincing evidence" (#6.2.6)
3. Elimination of a requirement of bad faith when determining URS action (#6.2.7)
4. A "loser pays" regime (#6.2.8)
5. Requirement of a separate rationale for filing of appeal (#6.2.10.1)
6. Extend URS beyond exact matches (#6.2.13)
7. Lowering standards of proof in Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (#6.3)

In regard to Consumer Protection measures as stated in Scorecard #6.4 (except for #6.4.4, see below), ALAC strongly agrees with the GAC positions (though we also agree with the "due care" response from the Board related to #6.4.2). At-Large has long indicated to ICANN a dissatisfaction with enforcement efforts, and re-enforces the sentiments behind #4.2.3.

Theme 3: Special categories of applications

Scorecard items 2.2, 6.4.4 8, 10

Theme 4: Operational readiness

...