Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Input To New TLD Consultation Richard Tindal Enom / Demand Media

    Uploaded by

    api-14756666
    The document summarizes eNom/Demand Media's input on the IRT's proposed rights protection mechanisms for new gTLDs. It supports the IP Clearinghouse, Thick Whois, Pre-Launch protections, and the expanded algorithm for top-level review. It supports the URS with modifications to reduce potential abuse. It also supports the Post Delegation Dispute mechanism with modifications. However, it opposes the GMPL because creating and applying such a list would be difficult, controversial, politically charged, and provide only marginal benefits compared to the significant costs.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Input To New TLD Consultation Richard Tindal Enom / Demand Media

    Uploaded by

    api-14756666
    28 views12 pages
    The document summarizes eNom/Demand Media's input on the IRT's proposed rights protection mechanisms for new gTLDs. It supports the IP Clearinghouse, Thick Whois, Pre-Launch protections, and the expanded algorithm for top-level review. It supports the URS with modifications to reduce potential abuse. It also supports the Post Delegation Dispute mechanism with modifications. However, it opposes the GMPL because creating and applying such a list would be difficult, controversial, politically charged, and provide only marginal benefits compared to the significant costs.

    Original Title

    null

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes eNom/Demand Media's input on the IRT's proposed rights protection mechanisms for new gTLDs. It supports the IP Clearinghouse, Thick Whois, Pre-Launch protections, and the expanded algorithm for top-level review. It supports the URS with modifications to reduce potential abuse. It also supports the Post Delegation Dispute mechanism with modifications. However, it opposes the GMPL because creating and applying such a list would be difficult, controversial, politically charged, and provide only marginal benefits compared to the significant costs.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    28 views12 pages

    Input To New TLD Consultation Richard Tindal Enom / Demand Media

    Uploaded by

    api-14756666
    The document summarizes eNom/Demand Media's input on the IRT's proposed rights protection mechanisms for new gTLDs. It supports the IP Clearinghouse, Thick Whois, Pre-Launch protections, and the expanded algorithm for top-level review. It supports the URS with modifications to reduce potential abuse. It also supports the Post Delegation Dispute mechanism with modifications. However, it opposes the GMPL because creating and applying such a list would be difficult, controversial, politically charged, and provide only marginal benefits compared to the significant costs.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 12

    Input to New TLD 

    Consultation

    Richard Tindal 
    eNom / Demand Media
    About eNom / Demand Media
    • Los Angeles based online media company that creates rich content for 
    our family of websites that serve passionate user communities 

    • Currently more than 70M unique visitors per month and growing 
    steadily as a top‐twenty‐five media property in the US

    • Also the second largest ICANN registrar with 12M names managed

    • Active in the ICANN process for 11 years

    • Intend to apply for a new TLD.  We think TLDs will bring more choice, 
    lower prices and a range of new services to consumers
    Our Philosophy on the IRT

    What It’s Not About:

    • Whether there should be new TLDs

    • Whether new TLDs require additional safeguards for trademark abuse

    • Whether the IRT is a legitimate voice in the new TLD process

    What It Is About:

    • Defining solutions that:  (1) are practical  (2) not overly burdensome on 
    legitimate users and (3) have benefits that substantially outweigh their costs
    How do we decide which solutions are
    best?

    Pages 7 and 11 of the Report spell out 10  Guiding Principles against which 
    “all proposals should be measured”

    We think these Principles are appropriate.  Let me read some…...

    • Four of IRT’s recommended solutions satisfy the principles and we 
    endorse those four 

    • Two of the proposals need modifications to become compliant

    • One proposal fails and we believe that one is inherently flawed
    IP Clearinghouse - we support it

    • Doesn’t create policy – it’s just an authenticated database

    • Creates efficiency and standardization

    • Will save trademark holders considerable cost

    • Is an important and complex job ‐‐‐ requires a careful and well 
    executed procurement action

    • If not initiated by ICANN the market will create this – though several 
    Clearinghouses would likely emerge
    Thick WhoIs – we support it
    • Never  previously mandated for gTLDs

    • Good consensus on this RPM – concerns are privacy related

    • IRT says ‐‐‐ “Thick WHOIS model is essential to the cost‐effective 
    protection of consumers and intellectual property owners”.

    • ICANN have included Thick WhoIs in the current draft of the Applicant 
    Guidebook

    • As there is no Thick WhoIs in .COM or .NET (which represent 84% of all 
    gTLD registrations) this is a major trademark improvement for new 
    TLDs 
    Pre-Launch (Sunrise or IP Claims) – we
    support it
    1. Has been tested and proven across multiple TLD launches 

    2. Of finite duration – probably the first few months after launch

    3. IRT modified previous Sunrise methods to make their proposed 
    mechanism more specific to actual trademark rights

    4. Solid consensus on these RPMs  – no significant criticisms during 
    public comment  
    Expanded Algorithm for Top Level
    Review – we support it
    • Current Applicant Guidebook has an algorithm that flags visual 
    similarity of a proposed TLD to existing or applied for TLDs – e.g.   BIZ 
    and B1Z, or SUN and SON

    • IRT propose to take any visual matches and then apply aural and 
    meaning tests to further determine if there is a likelihood of consumer 
    confusion

    • Clearly there’s subjectivity here – but IRT is only recommending 
    flagging of these applications for further human review

    • Also, importantly,  this is not replacing any of the existing Objection 
    mechanisms in the Applicant Guidebook
    URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) – we
    support it with modifications
    • URS is a very powerful RPM with potential to significantly reduce trademark 
    infringement

    • Seven important features as proposed by IRT:  
    1. Only applies if there is use of the name (i.e. a website)  
    2. Initial ‘freeze’ does not disable website
    3. Intended standard absolutely clear‐cut cases of trademark infringement 
    4. Only trademarks from jurisdictions that conduct substantive   
    examination of trademark applications 
    5. No default judgment if the registrant doesn’t respond
    6. No fee to Registrant unless more than 25 names
    7. If claim is successful names are suspended but not transferred

    We believe the URS  as currently specified will be abused by Claimants
    Improving the URS
    Some ideas to reduce URS abuse by overreaching trademark holders,  
    competitors or malicious parties:

    • Limit to one trademark per claim
    • Increase the Claimant Fee
    • Further narrow the test
    • Require a bond
    • Increase registrant response time
    • Fax notice to registrant
    • Require bi‐annual reviews of effectiveness/ abuse
    • Reduce abuse suspension threshold (currently 3 ‘strikes’)
    • Compress the  volume/ price tiers (currently 0‐25/ 26‐100/ 101‐200/200+)
    • Set a minimum number of names subject to one claim
    Post Delegation Dispute – we support
    it with modifications
    • The Part We Like ‐‐‐ Penalties if a Registry breaches its contract or 
    representations in its proposal

    • The Part We Don’t Like – Third party beneficiary rights based on judgments of  
    “bad faith”,  “manner of use”,  “intent to profit” or other subjective terms

    This RPM largely comes from a perception ICANN doesn’t enforce its contracts:

    First, we dispute that assertion

    Second,  to the extent people believe it is a problem the appropriate solution 
    is increased resource and focus on compliance
    GMPL – we oppose it
    • Will be extremely difficult,  controversial, and politicized to create this List

    • Has been attempted before ‐ without success

    • Expands existing legal rights

    • Cannot be applied to existing TLDs

    • Creates no new benefits at Top Level

    • Creates marginal benefits at Second level

    • SUMMARY ‐‐ The costs of this List significantly outweigh its benefits.  Other 
    proposed RPMs more effectively solve the problem

    You might also like