<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Robin and All,<br>
Let me share the links with you to Konstantinos posting (which I fully
endorse and support):<br>
1. The main announcement of the new Draft Application Guidebook, now in
Version 3 (called the DAG), with an overview of key issues and links.<br>
2. The new Uniform Suspension Services report (written by ICANN Staff)-
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-urs-04oct09-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-urs-04oct09-en.pdf</a><br>
3. The new Trademark Clearinghouse Report (written by ICANN Staff)-
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-tm-clearinghouse-04oct09-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-tm-clearinghouse-04oct09-en.pdf</a><br>
<br>
We look forward to discussing these documents with those in Seoul and
those online. Their impact on the Noncommercial Community will be
enormous (IMHO).<br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0A1C64F3-8F90-4682-8505-89C38ECBB020@ipjustice.org"
type="cite">Thank you, Konstantinos. This is very helpful starting
point for our discussion on how to position ourselves going forward.
You've highlighted some big issues below for us to work through.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Could you please forward White Paper again (or send another
link, I'm not able to access the links below)?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks again!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Robin</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 21, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"> <font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">Dear all,<br>
<br>
</span></font><font color="#333333"><font size="1"><font
face="Trebuchet MS"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">Here are some
initial thoughts on ICANN's response to the IRT proposal, published a
little earlier this month. Please bear in mind that ICANN is requesting
GNSO¹s consensus view on the Trademark Clearinghouse and the Uniform
Rapid Suspension System (URS). These are the views of myself and Kathy
Kleiman and a reflection of our sense of events. NCUC will be meeting
at length in Seoul to discuss the issues and develop our position for
moving forward. To see the new documents, drafted by ICANN staff,
please go to [</span></font></font></font><font size="1"><font
face="Trebuchet MS"><span style="font-size: 9pt;"><font color="#797979"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-u..">http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-u..</a>.</font><font
color="#333333">] for Uniform Rapid Suspension Service and [</font><font
color="#797979"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-t..">http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-t..</a>.</font><font
color="#333333">] for Clearinghouse.<br>
<br>
First, some great news. The Globally Protected Marks List (GMPL) is
completely gone (or so it appears at this stage). The NonCommercial
Users Constituency (NCUC) was against the GPML from the beginning and
in White Paper, Kathy Kleiman and myself submitted to ICANN (</font><font
color="#797979"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at..">https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at..</a>.</font><font
color="#333333">), we further elaborated on the dangers of proceeding
with the GPML.<br>
<br>
<br>
The IP Clearinghouse is now re-named Trademark Clearinghouse. I
consider this to be a great development. The term 'IP' encompasses
other rights (patents, copyright, etc) and this is not the role of the
Clearinghouse ¬ nor should it be. The Clearinghouse is just a
repository and ICANN was correct in recommending a new, more
restrictive name, following our White Paper (</font><font
color="#797979"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at..">https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at..</a>.</font><font
color="#333333">).<br>
<br>
<br>
The ICANN proposal did not follow NCUC¹s recommendation for regional
clearinghouses. This was an important issue for nations and for IDNs.
One entity cannot know the trademark laws and practices of all
countries; but regional registries will understand the laws and nuances
of trademark practice in the countries of their region. We expect to
see some attention on this issue from GAC members at this meeting.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
One clear problem of the Trademark Clearinghouse is its creation of a
new, a very new, right to a global common law mark. A common law mark,
which is trademark protection although there is no registration, is a
very unusual right. It exists largely in common law countries, such as
the UK and US. Very few countries allow trademark rights absent
trademark registration (e.g., though a national Trademark Office) and
even those countries with common law protection have national trademark
registration (which all serious trademark registrants will use). The
new proposal is problematic in that it allows any name written or
expressed on a handkerchief, on a label, on letterhead to be listed and
thus to gain global protection – absent any proof of national
protection. That's a real problem.<br>
<br>
The URS is a different story. It has gone worse.<br>
<br>
<br>
As always, we have the same question: why create a new system and not
stick to the UDRP and amend it accordingly? The UDRP was designed for
quick, cheap takedown of domain names. The URS is too quick, too cheap
and new proposal fails even to limit cases to the “egregious cases” of
domain name use that the IRT had highlighted.<br>
<br>
NCUC and the White Paper submitted to ICANN mentioned that the creation
of the URS could address Œserial cybersquatting¹, a proposal that was
not taken into consideration (</font><font color="#797979"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at..">https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at..</a>.</font><font
color="#333333">). So, the system will be open to gaming and abuse.
The idea is for the URS to 'lock' the domain name rather than transfer
or cancel it, as it happens with the UDRP. But, here is a possible
outcome of this: trademark owners will use the cheap and fast URS to
'lock' the domain name and then proceed to the UDRP (submitting the URS
decision as evidence for bad faith) and get transfer of the domain name.<br>
<br>
The URS continues to use and justify itself in the dialectic of the
UDRP. The new proposal says that the URS standard is similar to the
UDRP, but the burden of proof is higher – but it is much, much lower.<br>
<br>
Moreover, there is no mention on the legitimate rights or interests of
domain name holders and the deadlines are too short ¬ 14 days as
opposed to the UDRP¹s 20 days ¬ although there is a possibility for a
seven-day extension. Trademark owners will game the system, file on
Christmas Eve, and a domain name will be lost before the registrant
even knows it is of concern. This should be a huge problem for all
registrants: noncommercial, commercial and individual. It's simply not
fair; it's not due process.<br>
<br>
Further, the respondent is required to submit a statement on truth and
accuracy of the submissions, while the trademark owners appears not to
be under the same obligation. Why?<br>
<br>
Also, beware, one error on your response, and you lose. The new URS
proposal also the definition of Œdefault¹ to include non-compliance
with any the filling requirements-- even minor, even by a registrant
representing himself or herself. This is unfair, considering that
mistakes are human and do not necessarily indicate an attempt to abuse
the system. Creating such a rule, under the default definition, which
is already subjected to UDRP misinterpretations, creates a very bad
precedent.<br>
<br>
Basically, the URS, as revised, preempts, replaces and displaces the
UDRP without any of its balance or fairness. It does not focus on
egregious cases, but all garden variety disputes – and gives the
trademark owners a nearly automatic win.<br>
<br>
This can't be the way we want to open new gTLDs. And mass freezing of
domain names under the URS can't be the way we can expect registrants
to flock to the new gTLDs registry applicants want to offer.<br>
</font></span></font></font><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">-- <br>
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,<br>
Lecturer in Law,<br>
GigaNet Membership Chair,<br>
University of Strathclyde,<br>
The Lord Hope Building,<br>
141 St. James Road,<br>
Glasgow, G4 0LT,<br>
UK<br>
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306<br>
email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a></span></font><font
face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></font> </blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div> <span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<br class="khtml-block-placeholder">
</div>
<div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder">
</div>
<div>IP JUSTICE</div>
<div>Robin Gross, Executive Director</div>
<div>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</div>
<div>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451</div>
<div>w: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</a>
e: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a></div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>