You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 9 Next »

Comment Close
Date
Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s) and
RALO(s)

Call for
Comments
Call for
Comments
Close 
Vote
Announcement 
Vote OpenVote
Reminder
Vote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
27.08.2013Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) RequirementsVotingHong Xue (APRALO)26.08.201302.09.201304.09.2013
00:01 UTC 
04.09.2013
00:01 UTC
09.09.201310.09.201311.09.2013Karen Lentz
karen.lentz@icann.org
TBC
Comment / Reply Periods (*)
Comment Open Date: 
6 August 2013
Comment Close Date: 
27 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC
Reply Open Date: 
28 August 2013
Reply Close Date: 
18 September 2013 - 23:59 UTC
Important Information Links
Brief Overview
Originating Organization: 
ICANN
Categories/Tags: 
  • Contracted Party Agreements
  • Intellectual Property
  • Top-Level Domains
Purpose (Brief): 

The operational requirements for implementation of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims processes in new gTLDs, and a set of community-proposed revisions, are being posted for comment to give an opportunity for the community to review and provide feedback on these requirements.

Current Status: 

This revised version of the RPM Requirements reflects updates based on community consultations, and a set of proposals from the community are being posted to allow affected stakeholders to review and provide input.

Next Steps: 

Public comment will be analyzed and taken into account by ICANN.

Staff Contact: 
Karen Lentz
Detailed Information
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: 

ICANN has published both technical requirements and operational requirements for implementation of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims services required in the New gTLD Program. The operational requirements[PDF, 349 KB] were published in draft form on 6 April 2013. A variety of feedback and comment was provided on this draft, including an open consultation [PDF, 216 KB] for interested stakeholders to provide feedback.ICANN has considered the input received and has created a revised version of the RPM Requirements [PDF, 234 KB] that is being published for comment.

A group of community stakeholders including a number of applicants has also engaged with ICANN on some identified issues and has proposed a set of revisions [PDF, 83 KB] for inclusion in the RPM Requirements, to provide greater flexibility and support for certain business objectives.

Section II: Background: 

Certain trademark protections were built into the New gTLD Program in accordance with community discussions throughout the development of the program. As specified in the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, all newgTLD registries are required to offer a set of rights protection mechanisms, including a Sunrise period and a Trademark Claims service. These are minimum requirements, to support enhanced trademark protections in the new gTLD space.

The sunrise and trademark claims services have been implemented in accordance with the goal of providing protection for verified legal rights. Registry operators have discretion to implement their TLD startup phases in accordance with their individual business and operational models, so long as the minimum requirements are met.

Section III: Document and Resource Links: 
Section IV: Additional Information: 

None


(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The At-Large community supports the improvements made by ICANN in the revised Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements (RPM), released on 6 Aug 2013, in response to the IDN user community’s persistent requests to take action in order to prevent user confusion through the appropriate management of the IDN variants that are involved in the trademark measures.

Under the revised Requirements for the Sunrise Registration, a new gTLD Registry Operator that “has implemented IDN variant registration policies for the TLD” MAY register the IDN variant(s) as far as the corresponding trademark data has been generated by the Trademark Clearinghouse. At-Large community notes that the revision reflects the IDN user community’s request on removal of the unreasonable restriction on the registration of the IDN variant(s) of a valid trademark data over the Sunrise Period.

Under the revised Requirements for the Trademark Claims, a Registry Operator that “has established IDN variant policies for allocation of domain names in the TLD” MUST check all labels in a variant set against the Domain Name Label List for Trademark Claims before any domain names in the set are registered. At-Large community hails the revision the most significant improvement to prevent the user confusion that may be caused by the IDN variants that are not available in the trademark data generated by the Trademark Clearinghouse. The Revision is completely consistent with the purpose of the Trademark Claims, i.e. provision of clear notice to the prospective domain name registrant of the scope of the Trademark Holder’s rights. Even without the informational support from the Trademark Clearinghouse, the Registry Operator are obliged to ensure “all labels in a variant set against the Domain Name Label List” be availed for Trademark Claims.

Notwithstanding all the important improvements that have been made, At-Large community finds that the implementation of the revisions regarding the IDN variants completely relies on the TLD Registry Operator’s “IDN variant policies”, which will result in differentiating treatment for the same trademark in the IDN characters involving variants across the TLDs. The complexity can still potentially cause the user confusion in the IDN community. At-Large therefore calls for the ICANN to encourage the Registry Operators to implement the coherent IDN variant policies in consultation with the corresponding IDN user community. 

  • No labels