DEVELOPING OUR INDIVIDUAL INPUTS INTO THE GAC. AND SO THE GAC SCORECARD ON THIS ISSUE IS VERY MUCH A DISTILLATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS FROM SEVERAL GAC MEMBERS. AND ALL OF THE GAC, OF COURSE, HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH IT AND CHIP IN WITH COMMENTS AND STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT AND SO ON.
SO IN TERMS OF ESSENTIAL RATIONALE FOR WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, IT WAS A STRONG MESSAGE TO US FROM BRAND OWNERS AND RIGHTSHOLDERS THAT WHILE THEY RECOGNIZED THAT THE EXPANSION OF THE gTLD SPACE IS GOING TO PROVIDE THEM WITH OPPORTUNITIES THAT SOME MAY WELL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF AND SUBMIT APPLICATIONS INTO THE ROUND, INTO THE INITIAL ROUND OR MAYBE SUBSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS ALSO A VERY STRONG MESSAGE TO GOVERNMENTS THAT THE RIGHT TOOLS NEEDED TO BE IN PLACE TO MANAGE THAT PROCESS, THE PROCESS OF THE ROUND AND PROTECTING THEIR INTERESTS AS RIGHTSHOLDERS. SO MANY OF THEM COME AT THIS ISSUE FROM BOTH SIDES, AS POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THE BALANCE OF ENSURING THAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE ADEQUATELY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
SO THE RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS IN THE GUIDEBOOK ARE ESSENTIAL, REALLY. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A LOT OF ENGAGEMENT IN THE PROCESSES IN DEVELOPING THOSE RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS AND THE COMMITMENT OF THE ICANN SIDE TO CONSTRUCTING A SERIES OF MECHANISMS WAS WELCOMED BY GOVERNMENTS AND BY MANY STAKEHOLDERS.
KEY ISSUE IS MITIGATING THE COSTS OF PROTECTING RIGHTS AND REDUCING THE BURDENS TO BUSINESS. THAT IS A KEY ELEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY, TO REDUCE THE BURDENS ON BUSINESS SO THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO DEVELOP THEIR OPPORTUNITIES, CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMY NATIONALLY -- REGIONALLY, NATIONALLY, AND GLOBALLY. SO IT'S A KEY ELEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY THAT WE -- THAT THE BURDENS ON BUSINESS ARE REDUCED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. AND WE HAVE THAT AS A CHALLENGE FOR GOVERNMENT. THAT IS PART OF MY MINISTRY'S ROLE, IS TO ENSURE THAT WITHIN GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENTS DO NOT CREATE BURDENS FOR BUSINESS.
SO THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE NEW gTLD ROUND WITHIN ICANN, AGAIN, IT'S THE SAME ISSUE, HOW CAN WE REDUCE THE BURDENS OF BUSINESS IN THE FACE OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ESCALATION OF CYBERSQUATTING AND ABUSE OF RIGHTS, INFRINGEMENT, AND SO ON.
SO THE SCORECARD, WHICH YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, GOES INTO SOME DETAIL OF HOW WE FELT WE COULD REMEDY WHAT WE PERCEIVED AS CERTAIN INADEQUACIES OR INCONSISTENCIES IN THE RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS DESCRIBED IN THE SCORECARD.
WE DON'T -- SORRY. IN THE GUIDEBOOK.
WE DON'T PROPOSE REACTIVATING PREVIOUS PROPOSALS WHICH WERE ULTIMATELY REJECTED. WE DON'T HAVE ANY NEW MECHANISM TO SUBMIT TO THE COMMUNITY. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS REALLY WORKING WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN THE GUIDEBOOK, TAKING ACCOUNT OF ALL THE HARD WORK THAT'S GONE INTO PREPARING THE MECHANISMS, AND, INDEED, THE CONSULTATIONS THAT HAVE GONE ON VERY THOROUGHLY BY THE ICANN TEAM, THE STAFF, KURT AND ALL HIS COLLEAGUES. BUT WORKING WITH THAT TO TRY AND SORT OF RAISE THE BAR A BIT IN CERTAIN AREAS. SO THAT'S REALLY BEEN THE GAC'S APPROACH. IT'S NOT ONE OF TRYING TO OBSTRUCT ANY ELEMENT OF THE PREPARATIONS FOR THE ROUND IN ANY WAY, BUT ACTUALLY JUST TO SORT OF WORK WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT AND ADDRESS SOME AREAS WHERE WE FEEL THERE ARE DEFICIENCIES AND WHERE THERE MAY BE INCONSISTENCIES IN APPROACH.
SO I WON'T GO -- YOU'LL BE GLAD TO KNOW I'M NOT PROPOSING TO GO IN THIS OPENING SESSION TODAY INTO ANY GREAT DETAIL OF THE PROPOSALS WE DESCRIBE IN THE SCORECARD. SOME OF THEM ARE QUITE DETAILED.
BUT AS I SAY, IT FOCUSES, REALLY, ON TWO -- SORRY, THREE ELEMENTS: THE TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE, THE UNIFORM RAPID SUSPENSION SYSTEM, AND THE POST-DELEGATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS.
I GUESS IN TERMS OF -- IF I START OFF ON -- WITH REGARD TO THE URS, THE UNIFORM RAPID SUSPENSION SYSTEM, THE CONSENSUS IN THE GAC IS THAT THIS HAS -- THIS HAS KIND OF LOST ITS WAY. ITS INTENTION WAS A VERY POSITIVE ONE WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY FORMULATED, AND THAT WAS TO PROVIDE A QUICK NOT RESOURCE-INTENSIVE, BUT EFFECTIVE MECHANISM TO COMBAT CYBERSQUATTING, VERY OBVIOUS CASES. SO IT WAS A KIND OF QUICK MECHANISM TO DO THAT.
BUT WE NOW -- IT HAVING PROGRESSED THROUGH SEVERAL ITERATIONS, IT'S NOW CONSIDERED BY US TO BE CUMBERSOME AND LENGTHY AND TOO CLOSELY, REALLY, MIRRORING THE UDRP, WHICH WAS INTENDED TO DEAL WITH MUCH MORE COMPLEX DISPUTES.
THE CONSULTATIONS THAT INDIVIDUAL GAC MEMBERS HAVE UNDERTAKEN AND SOME OF THE SURVEYS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE, SUCH AS THAT PROVIDED BY THE -- UNDERTAKEN BY THE TRADEMARK REVIEW, HAVE INDICATED, REALLY, THAT -- SORRY -- WORLD TRADEMARK REVIEW -- HAVE INDICATED THAT PRETTY MUCH -- OVER 80% OF TRADEMARK COUNSEL BELIEVE THAT THE URS AS NOW DESCRIBED IN THE GUIDEBOOK IS REALLY NOT MEETING ITS OBJECTIVE AND IT'S INEFFECTIVE, REALLY.
SO THE PROPOSALS, REALLY, ARE -- IN THE SCORECARD ARE DESIGNED TO BRING THAT OBJECTIVE BACK TO THE FORE. AND WE'VE GOT -- WE'VE SUBMITTED SOME DETAILED WAYS IN WHICH WE THINK IT COULD BE STREAMLINED. WE'VE HAD A GO AT SHORTENING THE TIME LINE AS WELL. THERE'S A TABLE ATTACHED TO THE SCORECARD WHICH, UNFORTUNATELY, WAS LEFT OFF WHEN WE ORIGINALLY POSTED IT ON THE ICANN WEB SITE. BUT I HOPE THAT EVERYBODY'S HAD A LOOK AT THE TABLE WHERE WE'VE TRIED, REALLY, TO SEE HOW WE CAN REDUCE THE TIME LINE BY CUTTING THE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR REVIEW, BY SAVING TWO DAYS THERE, AND ALSO CUTTING THE TIME FOR NOTIFICATION, SAVING A COUPLE OF DAYS THERE. SO WE'VE TRIED TO SORT OF WORK WITH THE TIME LINE AND SEE HOW WE COULD SHORTEN IT. AND THEN IN TERMS OF STREAMLINING THE PROCESS OF THE URS, WE'VE TRIED TO WORK OUT, YOU KNOW, HOW IT COULD BE MADE EASIER TO USE, LESS DOCUMENTATION, LESS REQUIREMENTS, FEWER REQUIREMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED. AND THEN THERE ARE ISSUES SUCH AS THE PROBLEM WE HAVE WITH SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION, WHERE THIS IS REALLY A PROBLEM FOR THOSE ADMINISTRATIONS, INCLUDING THE WHOLE OF EUROPE, WHERE A SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION IS NOT UNDERTAKEN WHEN THE MARK IS REGISTERED.
SO WE'VE GOT THOSE PROPOSALS THERE. AS I SAY, I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL NOW.
THE CLEARINGHOUSE, WE FEEL THAT THERE ARE ISSUES THERE WITH REGARD, REALLY, PRIMARILY, TO ITS OPERATION. WE ESTABLISHED, REALLY, WITHIN THE GAC SOMETHING WHICH PERHAPS HAD BEEN NOT PURSUED BEFORE, AND THAT IS THAT BOTH SUNRISE SERVICES AND I.P. CLAIMS SHOULD BE MADE MANDATORY, SO THAT THE MARK OWNER REALLY HAS THAT DEGREE OF CHOICE WHETHER TO -- WELL, TO GO DOWN THE DEFENSIVE REGISTRATION ROUTE, IF YOU LIKE, THROUGH SUNRISE, RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH I.P. CLAIMS APPROACH. THAT WAS THE CONSENSUS FROM THE CONSULTATIONS THAT GAC MEMBERS HAD UNDERTAKEN, THAT THOSE ACTUALLY SHOULD BE -- THEY SHOULD BE EQUALLY AVAILABLE AND MANDATORY FOR THE REGISTRY OPERATORS TO HAVE. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT FUNCTIONALITY. AND A MARK OWNER MAY DECIDE THAT ONE IS PREFERABLE TO THE OTHER, ONE COURSE IS PREFERABLE TO THE OTHER. SO THAT'S ONE KEY ISSUE.
WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THEY SHOULD REQUIRE EXACT MATCHES OR WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE -- IN ADDITION, THERE SHOULD BE KEY TERMS ATTACHED TO THE MARK. AND THE VIEW WAS THAT IT SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO INCLUDE KEY TERMS TO GO WITH THE MARK.
SO THERE ARE ISSUES LIKE THAT WHICH WE -- I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL NOW, BUT WHERE WE FEEL THAT THE CLEARINGHOUSE AND ITS ROLE COULD BE -- AND ITS FUNCTIONALITY COULD BE IMPROVED. IT'S A VERY WELCOME INITIATIVE. THERE WAS A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR IT AS A VERY COST-EFFECTIVE MEANS AVAILABLE TO TRADEMARK HOLDERS. YOU KNOW, SORT OF ONE-STOP SHOP, IF YOU LIKE, A SINGLE CENTRAL DATABASE. SO IT WAS A VERY WELCOME PROPOSAL, A VERY WELCOME MECHANISM. BUT IT NEEDS IMPROVING IN TERMS OF WHAT CAN BE ADMITTED TO IT AND ITS APPLICATION TO SUNRISE SERVICES AND I.P. CLAIMS SERVICES.
WE ALSO CAME TO THE VIEW -- THIS MAY SURPRISE OTHERS -- THAT IT SHOULD CONTINUE AFTER THE LAUNCH OF EACH gTLD. SO THAT WAS THE CONSENSUS VIEW, AGAIN. THAT'S, AGAIN, AN ISSUE TO -- I GUESS TO BE DISCUSSED TOMORROW.
THE THIRD ELEMENT, THE POST-DELEGATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE, WE'VE GOT SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS THERE. AGAIN, I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL NOW. BUT, AGAIN, IT'S WITH THE VIEW, REALLY, TO GET SOME OF THIS -- SOME OF THE BALANCE RIGHT AND SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW, COMPLIANCE-RELATED ISSUES MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE AND CONSISTENT WITH A STRONG COMMITMENT BY ICANN TO ENSURE FULL COMPLIANCE. AS I SAY, I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL ON THAT NOW. MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING, AGAIN, TO BE DISCUSSED IN MORE DETAIL TOMORROW.
I THINK I'VE MANAGED -- SORRY THIS WAS RATHER LENGTHY. BUT I'VE INTENDED TO COVER, REALLY, OUR AIMS THERE AND WHAT THE KEY ELEMENTS, IF YOU LIKE.
THANKS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS VERY MUCH, MARK. AND AT A VERY HIGH-LEVEL RESPONSE, FIRST OF ALL I THINK I JUST APPRECIATE THE WAY YOU'VE EXPRESSED THAT, THAT YOU HAVEN'T ATTEMPTED TO REACTIVATE MECHANISMS THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS GONE THROUGH AND REJECTED THROUGH THE NORMALLY PROCESS. AND I THINK THE FOCUS THAT YOU'VE PUT ON THE DETAIL OF THE EXISTING MECHANISMS AND WORKING WITH US AND WE WANT TO WORK WITH YOU ON HOW TO IMPROVE THOSE, I THINK THAT'S A VERY PRODUCTIVE FOCUS. AND, HOPEFULLY, WE CAN DO THAT.
AND THEN BY WAY OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PERHAPS I SHOULD CONFESS THAT I AM ACTUALLY AN I.P. TRIAL LAWYER. AND I SYMPATHIZE WITH A LOT OF THE THRUST OF -- IN RELATION TO THE URS. AND I THINK SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE LOOKING AT WAS A RAPID SYSTEM THAT WE HAD THAT WASN'T GOING TO TRY AND ACT AS A REPAIR JOB OF THE UDRP. AND WE'RE PLEASED TO SEE THAT SINCE THIS BEGAN, THE GNSO HAS NOW GOT A PROCESS FOR LOOKING AT IMPROVING THE UDRP.
SO JUST SOME QUICK HIGH-LEVEL COMMENTS.
RITA, CAN I COME TO YOU? BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS. JUST EXPLAIN TO THE AUDIENCE, THE BOARD HAS ACTUALLY DELIVERED, THROUGH MARK TO THE GAC, A WHOLE SERIES OF QUITE DETAILED QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THESE. NOT QUITE SURE, RITA, WHETHER IT'S PRODUCTIVE NOW TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS AND ASK MARK TO GIVE US ANSWERS. BUT I THINK SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES PROBABLY ARE WORTH HAVING A GOOD LOOK AT.
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: THANKS, PETER. YEAH, I DON'T THINK SO. I JUST WANT TO ECHO YOUR COMMENTS IN BEGINNING, MARK, I THINK IT WAS HELPFUL TO NOTE THAT THE GAC WAS ENCOURAGED BY THE ENGAGEMENT IN THIS PROCESS TO CONSTRUCT THESE MECHANISMS THROUGHOUT THIS NEW gTLD PROCESS. I THINK THAT'S VERY MUCH HOW THE BOARD FEELS. AND WE'RE HAPPY TO FEEL THAT YOU AGREE AND THAT THIS IS KIND OF THE END GAME IN TRYING TO TWEAK AND PERFECT SOME OF THESE MECHANISMS. SO I APPRECIATED THAT COMMENT FROM THE GAC.
JUST TO TAKE THEM IN YOUR ORDER, AS PETER SAID, WE HAVE A SERIES OF SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. I THINK THAT THE SCORECARD WAS QUITE DETAILED. HOPEFULLY, MOST IN THE ROOM HAVE READ IT. BUT THERE WERE SOME QUITE DETAILED BULLETS WHICH WE DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH HERE, AND WE HAVE GIVEN SOME QUESTIONS TO MARK. I GUESS I'LL JUST ASK A FEW, MARK.
THE FIRST WAS, IN CONNECTION WITH THE URS, THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT IF THERE WAS A DEFAULT, THEN THERE SHOULD BE AN ADJUDICATION IN FAVOR OF THE COMPLAINANT AND THE WEB SITE SHOULD BE LOCKED. AND THE EXAMINATION OF DEFENSES IN THE DEFAULT CASE, THAT PROVISION SHOULD BE DROPPED AS WELL.
SO WE WERE WONDERING IF YOU MEANT THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLAINT IN THE EVENT OF A DEFAULT OR JUST NO CONSTRUCTION OF POSSIBLE DEFENSES.
>>MARK CARVELL: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, I THINK IT'S THE FORMER CASE, ACTUALLY. THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO ELABORATION OF THE DEFENSE IN A DEFAULT CASE, IF THAT'S THE QUESTION.
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: SO I THINK THAT WAS THE SECOND OPTION, THOUGH. I THINK THE FIRST WAS WOULD THERE BE A SUBSTANTIVE EVALUATION. SO THERE WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIVE EVALUATION COMPLAINT MAKE SURE THERE WAS A TRADEMARK. BUT IN THE DAG, IT SAYS THE EXAMINER WOULD ALMOST CONCEIVE OF POSSIBLE DEFENSES. AND THAT WOULD BE AN OBLIGATION. SO THE GAC IS SUGGESTING TO DROP THAT PORTION. OKAY.
FANTASTIC.
I THINK THE OTHER QUESTIONS WERE MOSTLY ABOUT THE CLEARINGHOUSE. I KNOW THAT HISTORICALLY, I THINK THE IRT, THE STI ALL TALKED ABOUT THIS EITHER/OR FOR SUNRISE I.P. CLAIMS. YOU MENTIONED THIS WAS SOMEWHAT OF A NEW CONCEPT THAT YOU GUYS CAME UP WITH, THAT THEY SERVED DIFFERENT INTERESTS. CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF AN IDEA OF HOW THAT WOULD ACTUALLY WORK IN PRACTICE TO HAVE BOTH OF THOSE AT THE SAME TIME IN EACH TLD.
>>MARK CARVELL: WELL, THERE WOULD BE -- YOU KNOW, THE REGISTRY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THOSE TWO OPTIONS. AND I GUESS IT'S THE OPPORTUNITY, THEN, FOR A MARKS HOLDER TO GO FOR THE SUNRISE, TO GO DOWN THAT ROUTE OF APPLYING FOR A REGISTRATION, PUTTING IN -- YOU KNOW, GETTING IN THERE FIRST, IF YOU LIKE.
AND IF THAT WERE NOT AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD DENY THAT CHOICE, THAT OPTION. IT MAY NOT APPLY IN EVERY CASE. BUT THAT'S THE REASON FOR IT, I GUESS, HAVING THE TWO AVAILABLE.
IN OPERATIONAL TERMS, I DON'T REALLY SEE THERE'S AN ISSUE. BUT IF YOU THINK FOR THE REGISTRY THAT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM OR FOR THE CLEARINGHOUSE, WELL, WE'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR WHAT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE MIGHT BE. BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING IN TERMS OF A PROBLEM THAT WOULD MANIFEST ITSELF BY THAT -- THOSE TWO BEING OFFERED BY THE REGISTRY OPERATOR.
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: OKAY --
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: PERHAPS BRUCE CAN HELP WITH THAT. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S AN IMMEDIATE DOUBLING OR INCREASING OF COSTS IN REGISTRIES HAVING TO OPERATE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SYSTEMS.
BRUCE, CAN YOU GIVE US SOME INPUT INTO THAT FROM THE REGISTRY SIDE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THEM BOTH OPERATING TOGETHER, THERE'S A DEGREE OF OVERLAP IN THE FUNCTION BETWEEN THE TWO. WE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION OVER LUNCH HERE. MARK, IS IT CORRECT WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR THERE PRIMARILY IS NOTICE TO A TRADEMARK HOLDER IN THE CLEARINGHOUSE OF A PARTICULAR NAME BEING APPLIED FOR DURING THE LAUNCH PROCESS? IS THAT A CORRECT SUMMARY OF WHAT -- THE OUTCOME YOU'RE LOOKING FOR?
>>MARK CARVELL: YES. THAT THERE WOULD BE A NOTICE, YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: 'CAUSE I.P. CLAIMS INCORPORATES A NOTICE AT THE END OF IT -- OF THE PROCESS, IF YOU LIKE. BUT THE EARLIER PARTS, IF YOU WERE DOING THEM BOTH, IT'S BASICALLY SAYING, ONE, YOU HAVE TO REGISTER YOUR TRADEMARK IN THE CLEARINGHOUSE. TWO, YOU'RE APPLYING FOR A NAME ON THE BASIS THAT YOU HAVE A TRADEMARK. THEN YOU'RE GOING TO GET AN I.P. CLAIMS RESPONSE BACK SAYING, "HEY, YOU HAVE A TRADEMARK. DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BE INFRINGING YOUR TRADEMARK?" LIKE THEY KIND OF OVERLAP, BECAUSE THE I.P. CLAIMS IS INTENDED TO HAVE -- WITH RESPECT TO YOU, SAY YOU'RE APPLYING FOR YOUR TRADEMARK, WHICH IS WHY YOU'RE APPLYING IN THE FIRST PLACE. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? IT'S KIND OF CIRCULAR FOR COMBINING THOSE TWO TOGETHER. IF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, IS THERE ARE -- A TRADEMARK HOLDER MAY CHOOSE NOT TO APPLY DURING SUNRISE, BUT THEY WANT TO BE INFORMED OF SOMEONE ELSE WHO HAS THE SAME TRADEMARK IN A DIFFERENT INDUSTRY IS APPLYING, AS AN EXAMPLE. SO IT'S MORE THAN NOTICE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE REALLY TRYING TO ACHIEVE I.P. CLAIMS AND SUNRISE TOGETHER.
>>MARK CARVELL: WELL, I THINK WE STILL ARE. WE STILL FEEL THAT THERE'S THAT OPTION THAT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. FOR THE MARKS HOLDER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, BUT YOU UNDERSTAND, YOU'RE GETTING (DROPPED AUDIO) DOESN'T ACTUALLY DIRECTLY PARTICIPATE IN I.P. CLAIMS. THE HOLDER RECEIVES MESSAGES FOR ANY APPLICATION THAT IS ACROSS ANY TLD IN THEIR TRADEMARK.
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: MARK, I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT IN SUNRISE, RIGHT, THE ONLY PEOPLE OR ENTITIES THAT YOU WILL ARE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN SUNRISE HAVE TRADEMARKS. AND WE KNOW THAT YOU GUYS HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT WHETHER SUBSTANTIVE EVALUATION, I.E., USE, SHOULD BE REQUIRED, OR IF IT CAN BE A COMMON LAW MARK OR COMMUNITY MARK.
SO WHOEVER THAT IS, WHATEVER THAT TRADEMARK IS, YOU CAN ONLY PARTICIPATE IN SUNRISE IF YOU HAVE A TRADEMARK.
IN I.P. CLAIMS -- I THINK WHAT BRUCE IS SAYING IS TO HAVE THAT TOGETHER WOULD BE WEIRDLY CIRCULAR.
IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS I.P. CLAIMS IS MEANT TO JUST GIVE NOTIFICATION TO TRADEMARK OWNERS THAT ANYBODY IS FILING FOR A DOMAIN NAME THAT INCORPORATES THEIR TRADEMARK, THEN, IN THEORY, I GUESS MY QUESTION -- I'LL ANSWER MY OWN QUESTION -- I THINK WHEN YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO HAPPEN TOGETHER, IT MEANS THERE'S GOING TO BE SORT OF A SUNRISE PERIOD, WHICH IS JUST FOR THE TRADEMARK OWNERS. THEN THERE'S ANOTHER PRELAUNCH PERIOD, WHICH WOULD BE THIS I.P. CLAIMS, WHICH ALMOST IS SORT OF A LAND RUSH TYPE PERIOD WHERE PEOPLE PREREGISTER -- THAT'S WHY WE GOT INTO THIS DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD LEVEL WHERE IT ACTUALLY DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. BECAUSE IF IT WAS -- IF THE GAC MEANT THAT ONGOING -- AND THIS I THINK IS WHAT BRUCE IS TRYING TO GET AT WITH NOTIFICATION -- IF THE GAC MEANT THAT THIS NOTICE OF ANYBODY TRYING TO REGISTER ANYTHING THAT REFLECT THE MARK IN THE TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE WENT ON FOREVER, THAT WOULD BE, I THINK, A CHANGE TO THE DAG THAT WASN'T DISCUSSED BEFORE. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR HERE.
>>MARK CARVELL: OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND MORE OR LESS COME BACK TO THIS, I MEAN, THE CIRCULARITY ARGUMENT IS QUITE A REASONABLE ONE. YOU KNOW, LET'S GO BACK TO IT AND CONSULT OVERNIGHT, IF NECESSARY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I GUESS I'VE GOT A SLIGHT DIFFICULTY IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS IN THAT THE IRT, WHO ARE THE SOURCE OF THIS, RECOMMENDED ONE OR THE OTHER. AND SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR SOME REALLY GOOD ARGUMENTS WHY WE WOULD DEPART FROM THE AUTHORS' ADVICE HERE. THAT'S THE SPECIALIST TEAM WE PUT TOGETHER. AND WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL AND CONTINUE TO BE FOR THE WORK THAT THEY DID. THAT'S A HIGH-LEVEL QUESTION ABOUT ALL OF THESE THINGS, WHERE WE'RE DEPARTING FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR WHY.
PARTICULARLY BECAUSE, AS YOU'VE, YOU KNOW, SAID, AND THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH TO GET THERE.
I'VE GOT A DIFFERENT QUESTION, RITA, WHEN YOU'RE READY. HAVE YOU GOT ANY MORE ON -- YEP. KEEP GOING, THEN. YEP.
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: SO THE OTHER COMMENT -- AND I THINK YOU ALSO MENTIONED THIS, MARK, IN YOUR OPENING REMARKS -- WAS ABOUT EXTENDING IN THE TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE FROM EXACT TEXT MATCHES TO INCLUDE KEY TERMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOODS OR SERVICES AND TYPOGRAPHICAL VARIATIONS.
SO, AGAIN, WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS. OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CLEARINGHOUSE IS THAT BRAND OWNERS -- AND, AGAIN, THE TYPE OF TRADEMARK THAT'S ELIGIBLE IS STILL AT ISSUE -- BUT BRAND OWNERS WILL GO AND REGISTER IN THE DATABASE. SO I WILL GO REGISTER, YOU KNOW, THAT I OWN RITA.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT IF THE -- AND THEN THIS CLEARINGHOUSE IS GOING TO BE USED, REGISTRIES WILL CHECK AGAINST THAT TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF VIOLATIONS WHEN REGISTRANTS ARE TRYING TO REGISTER A NAME.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT I, AS THE TRADEMARK OWNER, HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO REGISTER MY NAME SPELLED CORRECTLY, R-I-T-A, MY NAME IS SPELLED R-E-E-T-A, REALLY TALL RITA? I CAN GO ON AND ON, RIGHT, ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS INCORPORATING MY NAME. SO HOW DOES -- IF YOU'RE GOING TO INCLUDE THAT, I GUESS WE WANTED TO KNOW WHY YOU WANTED TO EXPAND IT, ONE. AND THEN, TWO, HOW DOES THAT INFORMATION GET POPULATED IN THE DATABASE?
>>MARK CARVELL: OKAY. THANKS.
I THINK IT'S AN OPTION, ISN'T IT? IT'S AN OPTION FOR THE MARKS HOLDER TO PUT VARIATIONS INTO THE DATABASE IT'S NOT AN OBLIGATION. NOT MEANT TO BE UNIVERSALLY COMPREHENSIVE IN TERMS OF EVERY POSSIBLE VARIANT OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ALTERATION.
BUT A MARK HOLDER MAY WELL FEEL, WELL, QUITE OFTEN, THIS IS WHERE THEY GET INTO INFRINGEMENT AREAS, THAT AN EXTENSION OF THE -- OF THE MARK BECOMES A POINT OF INFRINGEMENT. AND THAT'S QUITE WELL-ESTABLISHED PRACTICE WITHIN I.P. GENERALLY IN TERMS OF PROTECTION. WHY SHOULD IT NOT APPLY FOR ENTERING INTO A DATABASE WHICH IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE MARK HOLDER? SO CAN I THROW THAT QUESTION BACK? -- IN THAT WAY, BACK TO YOU?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I CAN ANSWER THAT, MARK.
BECAUSE THE -- IT'S DEALT WITH AT THE POINT OF MAKING THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S AN INFRINGEMENT OR WHETHER OR NOT IT NEEDS TO BE STOPPED. AND THAT'S THE STANDARD THAT'S APPLIED BY THE PANEL, WHICH IS LOOKING AT THIS AND SAYING, IS THIS SUBSTANTIALLY -- YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THE TEST, IS THIS CONFUSINGLY SCHOLAR OR DECEPTIVE OR WHATEVER THE TEST IS. SO THAT'S WHERE YOU DO THAT EXERCISE. THE DIFFICULTY I HAVE WITH THIS PROPOSITION IS WE GO TO A GREAT DEAL OF TROUBLE TO SPECIFY EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF PROPERTY GOES IN, AND THEN, AGAIN, VERY CAREFULLY EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF PROPERTY CAN BE USED IN THESE SERVICES. BUT THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO DEFINITION ABOUT WHAT THIS CONSISTS OF, SO WE'RE HAVING A DETAILED AND USEFUL ARGUMENT ABOUT WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE TRADEMARKS FROM THESE JURISDICTIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S GOING TO BE SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION OR NOT. THEN WE HAVE THIS OTHER CATEGORY OF SIMPLY AUTHOR-GENERATED, CREATED, GOOD IDEAS THAT EVERY TRADEMARK OWNER CAN JUST MAKE UP IN ADDITION TO THEIR REGISTERED RIGHTS. THIS SEEMS TO BE SUGGESTING THAT NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE THOSE CAREFULLY DEFINED CATEGORIES, SOME OF WHICH WE USE FOR SOME THINGS AND SOME OF WHICH WE USE FOR OTHERS, BUT THEN THERE'S JUST THIS THING OF -- HERE'S ALL THE OTHER THINGS I WANT KIND OF A CATEGORY, WITH NO LIMIT, NO DESCRIPTION.
SO I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFICULTY IN KNOWING HOW WE WOULD KNOW WHAT WAS PROPERLY IN THERE. AND THEN IN THE LAST POINT, YOU KNOW, THAT SAYS THAT THEY SHOULD ALSO BE USED, I MEAN, THERE ISN'T -- WHAT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF TRADEMARK LAW THAT ALLOWS YOU TO NOT ONLY HAVE A DEFINITION THAT SAYS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR AND DECEPTIVE, BUT ALSO LOOKS LIKE ONE OF THESE THINGS? I MEAN, I HAVE -- YOU HAVE TO HELP US WITH THAT. THERE'S PRECISION ISSUES, THERE'S CATEGORIZATION ISSUES, THERE'S DATA ENTRY AUTHENTICATION ISSUES, AND THEN THERE'S THE APPLICATION AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENT OF INFRINGEMENT. HOW DO WE USE THAT? AGAIN, MAYBE TOO MUCH FOR TODAY. BUT THESE ARE THE KINDS OF PROBLEMS WE'RE HAVING WITH THIS SORT OF EXPANSION BEYOND WHAT THE IRT SUGGESTED.>>MARK CARVELL: IF I COULD COME BACK REALLY JUST TO UNDERLINE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF EXTENSION BEYOND EXACT MATCHES, OUR KEY TERMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MARKS, THERE IS A LIMIT, IF YOU'D LIKE, TO WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING AS GOING I DON'T KNOW EXACT MATCHES. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS TOMORROW, THE PRACTICAL ABILITY OF HOW YOU FEEL IT MIGHT BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE AIMS OF THE CLEARINGHOUSE.
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: THANK YOU, MARK. ANOTHER CHANGE THAT THE GAC HAD PROPOSED WAS DURING THE IP CLAIMS SERVICE, THE WAY THE DAG READS CURRENTLY, IF A NON-TRADEMARK OWNER WANTS TO REGISTER A NAME AND IT CORRESPONDS TO A NAME IN THE CLEARINGHOUSE THERE IS A NOTICE SENT TO THE POTENTIAL REGISTRANT THAT THERE IS A TRADEMARK, RED ALERT, YOU BETTER MAKE SURE AND THERE IS SOME OBLIGATIONS THAT TURN UP.
THEN THE NAME IS GIVEN TO THE REGISTRANT IF THEY MAKE CERTAIN CERTIFICATIONS AND THEN LATER IN THE PROCESS THERE IS A NOTIFICATION TO THE TRADEMARK OWNER. I THINK THE GAC WANTS TO CHANGE TO THE NOTIFICATION SIMULTANEOUS THE DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANT GETS TOLD THERE IS A TRADEMARK IN THE CLEARINGHOUSE AND THEN THE DOMAIN NAME -- SORRY, THE TRADEMARK OWNER ALSO GETS A NOTICE AT THE SAME TIME.
AGAIN, WE WERE WONDERING, WHY YOU WANTED TO DO THAT AND WHAT EFFECT THAT WAS MEANT TO HAVE ON THE PROCESS.
>>MARK CARVELL: SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE TO CONSULT ON, BUT AS I RECALL IT, I THINK THE INTENTION WAS TO ENHANCE THE COMMUNICATION TWO WAYS. I DON'T RECALL ANY PROBLEM ARISING FROM THAT. IT WOULD SERVE TO ENHANCE REALLY THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE CLEARINGHOUSE. I THINK THAT WAS OUR OBJECTIVE. BUT I CAN CONSULT FURTHER ON THAT OBJECTIVE WITH MY IP COLLEAGUES. I CAN SEE MY GERMAN COLLEAGUE MAY HAVE A MORE AUTHORITATIVE ANSWER THAN I.
>>GERMANY: THANK YOU. I THINK WE ARE MOVING IN A RATHER DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THESE ISSUES. I RECEIVED THIS QUESTION AFTER LUNCH AND IT IS REALLY DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW IT -- TO FOLLOW THE DISCUSSION HERE, READ THE QUESTION AND TRY TO CONSULT WITH COLLEAGUES. THEREFORE, I WOULD ASK IF WE COULD HAVE THIS KIND OF DISCUSSION. I THINK WHAT MARK SHOWED US AND DEMONSTRATED IS A CLEAR WAY WHAT ARE OUR PROPOSALS. I THINK WE SHOULD LEAVE THE DETAILED DISCUSSIONS PERHAPS FOR TOMORROW BECAUSE THESE ARE QUESTIONS WE HAVE TO DISCUSS ALSO WITH OUR COLLEAGUES AT HOME IN OUR CAPITALS. AND, THEREFORE, I WOULD REALLY ASK TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TOMORROW. THIS DISCUSSION FOR US ALSO IS A VERY IMPORTANT ONE AND BE CONTRIBUTED SIGNIFICANTLY ALSO TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AND WE CONSIDER IT IS IMPORTANT THAT IT IS AN IMPROVEMENT. AND I WELCOME THE POSSIBILITIES THAT WE HAVE THE OPEN EXCHANGES TO COME TO A SUBSTANTIVE IMPROVEMENT.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS. WE ARE ALL VERY SYMPATHETIC.
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: THAT WAS HELPFUL. IF WE CAN GIVE YOU BACK OUR PRINCIPLE WHEN YOU GO BACK TO YOUR DIFFERENT CONSTITUENTS. I THINK WE WENT THROUGH THIS SIGNIFICANTLY. THERE WERE MUCH MORE COMMENTS THAN ICANN STAFF HAD ANTICIPATED WOULD BE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRADEMARK ISSUE. SO WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME THE LAST WEEK GOING OVER IN DETAIL. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM SOME OF THE QUESTIONS, AND YOU WILL SEE IN THE SHEET, THEY REALLY WERE UNDERSTANDING HOW WILL THE SPECIFICS AND HOW THEY WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE, AGAIN, THIS EXERCISE IS TO AMEND THE GUIDEBOOK, RIGHT, AND FINALIZE THIS PROCESS SO THAT'S WHY IN MUCH DETAIL AS YOU CAN GIVE US AS TO EXACTLY THIS MEANT AND HOW IT WAS GOING TO WORK WOULD BE GREAT. THANKS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: BRUCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I GUESS MY FIRST COMMENT IS THIS IS SOMETHING WE PLANNED IN THE PLANNING OF THIS EVENT WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO HAVE A BREAKOUT OF THE SMALLER STUFF TO GO THROUGH AND MOST PEOPLE WILL BE LOST BECAUSE YOU REALLY NEED TO KNOW THE DETAIL OF THE GUIDEBOOK DOWN TO THE INDIVIDUAL WORDS, NOT EVEN INDIVIDUAL SENTENCES.
JUST ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY IN THE COMMENT HERE AND PERHAPS WHERE WE GO FROM THERE, THAT IF I LOOK AT THE DOT .4 READS ALL TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS OF NATIONAL AND SUPERNATIONAL EFFECT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER EXAMINED ON UNDERSTANDIVE OR RELATIVE GROUNDS MUST BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SUNRISE MECHANISMS. THIS MIGHT BE JUST A MATTER OF WORDING, BUT I GUESS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE THAT IS ALREADY THE CASE. LIKE, THERE IS A -- TWO THINGS THAT NEED TO -- YOU NEED TO HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN SUNRISE AS IT IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED.
ONE, YOU MUST HAVE A TRADEMARK REGISTRATION WHICH INCLUDES ALL THESE THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY STATED IN YOUR SENTENCE; AND, TWO, BEING ABLE TO SHOW USE.
AND SO I THINK WHAT WE HAVE COME TO THE UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MOST -- IN MOST CASES THAT'S GOING TO BE A PROCESS THAT'S DONE AT THE CLEARINGHOUSE. SO THE CLEARINGHOUSE WOULD GET ALL TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS THAT YOU HAVE INCLUDED HERE AND IT WOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF EVIDENCE OF USE WHICH COULD BE PERHAPS A PDF FILE OF A BROCHURE OR SOMETHING, SOME EVIDENCE OF USE. AND THEN THE CLEARINGHOUSE THEN ACCEPTS THAT AS BEING ELIGIBLE FOR SUNRISE.
SO IT IS NOT A CASE OF SOME TRADEMARKS ARE ELIGIBLE AND SOME TRADEMARKS ARE NOT. THE FIRST THING YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR ELIGIBILITY IS A TRADEMARK WHICH INCLUDES ALL OF THOSE. THE SECOND THING YOU MUST HAVE FOR ELIGIBILITY IS USE. WHICH FORM THE MAJORITY OF CASES WE NOW UNDERSTAND WILL REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF THAT INFORMATION DIRECTLY TO THE CLEARINGHOUSE. SO REALLY THE QUESTION FOR YOU IS: ARE WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY SAYING YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A USE PROVISION IN THERE BECAUSE THAT'S A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THING AS OPPOSED TO SAYING WHERE THE TRADEMARKS ARE ELIGIBLE?
BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION, UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATION. SOWF'S GOT IN HERE PRESUMABLY A PROTECTION AGAINST FRIVOLOUS USE OF THE PROCESS AND YOUR PROTECTION IN HERE, I THINK, IS TO SAY REGISTRATIONS TO BE ELIGIBLE MUST BE BEFORE 2008. NOW, THAT HAS TWO IMPACTS. FIRSTLY, MOST OF THESE GENERIC WORDS AND WORDS THAT WE USE FRIVOLOUSLY ARE ALREADY REGISTERED PRIOR TO JUNE 2008 BUT MOST OF THEM DON'T HAVE USE. SO REMOVING THE USE PROVISION THAT THE ICANN PROCESS HAS INCORPORATED PRETTY MUCH MEANS THAT EVERYBODY THAT'S GOING TO GAME THE PROCESS IS NOW IN BECAUSE THOSE REGISTRATIONS PREEXIST JUNE 2008.
SO ALL THE GENERIC WORDS ARE REGISTERED. HALF THE BRANDS ARE REGISTERED BECAUSE THEY HAVE REGISTERED THEM IN TRADEMARK PLACES THAT HAVEN'T DONE ANY EFFECT THERE. PRETTY MUCH THAT MEANS -- IN EFFECT, YOU AREN'T GETTING A SUNRISE WHERE YOU HAVE GOT VALID BRANDS ELIGIBLE FOR SUNRISE AS A FIRST RIGHT TO REGISTER AND OTHERS COMPETE. YOU HAVE ACTUALLY GOT EVERYBODY IN SUNRISE THE WAY THIS IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED.
SO WHAT WE HAD TRIED TO DO TO PREVENT THE GAMING OF PEOPLE -- BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN, THAT'S THE EXPERIENCE. THAT'S WHAT THE REGISTRY OPERATORS AND REGISTRARS HAVE BEEN SAYING, IS THIS HAS BENGAL AND WE ARE TRYING TO PREVENT IT BEING GAMED. TO PREVENT IT, ONE OF THE PREVENTIONS WAS TO REQUIRE USE BECAUSE MOST OF WHAT I WILL CALL FAKE APPROACHES DON'T ACTUALLY USE THE NAME OR MAY NOT BE USING THE NAME. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAD A USE PROVISION. SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A TRADEMARK WHICH INCLUDES EVERYTHING YOU HAVE, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE USE. THAT WAS TO STOP PEOPLE GAMING FOR SUNRISE.
WITHOUT HAVING USE, CERTAINLY THE JUNE 2008 WON'T PROTECT YOU NOR WILL IT -- THEN HAS ANOTHER EFFECT FOR BRAND HOLDERS, HOW MUCH PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED SINCE JUNE 2008? WE ARE NOW 2011. THERE MUST HAVE BEEN THOUSANDS OF MAJOR PRODUCTS LAUNCHED IN THE LAST THREE YEARS. AND WE ARE SAYING THOSE PRODUCTS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE. IT IS KIND OF UNDERSTANDING HOW THESE WORK TOGETHER, I GUESS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: MARK, YOU ARE IN THE HOT SEAT STILL.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>>MARK CARVELL: WE IN THE U.K. ARE CERTAINLY SYMPATHETIC TO WHAT YOU IDENTIFIED AS A QUICK MEANS OF ESTABLISHING USE, SUBMITTING A PDF OF A WEB SITE OR BROCHURE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN CERTAINLY ACCOMMODATE IN CERTAIN -- WELL, FROM THE U.K. PERSPECTIVE I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE-CHECK THAT POINT WITH GAC COLLEAGUES.
THE JUNE 2008 PROPOSAL HERE, I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE THERE IS STILL AN ONGOING DISCUSSION WITHIN THE GAC ABOUT THAT BECAUSE ACTUALLY WE, U.K., ARE MAKING THE SAME POINT. WE'RE THREE YEARS ON FROM 2008 AND LOT OF BONA FIDE REGISTRATIONS ARE GOING TO BE -- TRADEMARKS ARE GOING TO BE SCREENED OUT. (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS).
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: LET'S THE BAD ONES IN AND KEEPS THE GOOD ONES OUT. AT A HIGH LEVEL, WE ARE VERY SYMPATHETIC. WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS THE SAME AS YOU. WE WANT TO GET AN EFFECTIVE SUNRISE AND WE WANT EFFECTIVE PROTECTIONS. THE PRINCIPLE THAT COMES THROUGH FROM THE GNSO WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS AND TRADEMARK RIGHTS ARE CLEARLY CRUCIAL ONES. SO WE START FROM THE SAME POSITION.
THE POINT IS WE'VE GOT QUITE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN LEARNING FROM SUNRISES. AND IF WE JUST HAVE A REGISTRATION SOMEWHERE, AS WE ALL KNOW, THEY CAN BE MANUFACTURED OR GOTTEN VERY EASILY AND WE DON'T END UP WITH A USEFUL SUNRISE AT ALL UNLESS IT IS COUPLED AS BRUCE IS POINTING OUT WITH SOME FURTHER THINGS. IT IS NOT TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN KINDS OF TRADEMARK REGISTRIES. IT IS TO KIND OF GET WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO GET INTO THIS VERY POWERFUL MECHANISM THAT WE'VE CREATED FOR THIS AGREED PURPOSE. IT IS JUST A QUESTION OF GETTING A GOOD ONE, NOT A REGISTERED ONE.
MORE ON THAT? SO, AGAIN, TOPIC FOR BREAKOUT PERHAPS TODAY AND CERTAINLY FOR MORE DISCUSSION TOMORROW. RITA, BACK TO YOU FOR MORE QUESTIONS.
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: I THINK WE'VE TAKEN UP OUR TIME. I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIG ONES REALLY. SO I THINK IT WILL BE HELPFUL IF YOU ALL CAN CAUCUS WITH SOME OF THESE PRINCIPLES IN MIND AND WE CAN TAKE THIS UP AGAIN TOMORROW.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, INCLUDING YOU, MARK, OBVIOUSLY AS WELL ABOUT TRADEMARK PROTECTIONS? YOU DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE URS? YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE CLEARINGHOUSE.
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. I THOUGHT THERE WAS A REQUEST FROM THE GAC NOT TO GET INTO THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. WHY DON'T WE LET THEM CAUCUS ON THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND TAKE THEM UP AT A LATER TIME.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO SAY -- I AGREE, RITA, COMPLETELY. WE HAVE GIVEN QUITE DETAILED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE URS. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO SAY TODAY, AGAIN, MORE ABOUT THE URS AS A MATTER OF EITHER POLICY OR PRINCIPLE?
>>MARK CARVELL: THANKS. I MEAN, I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT YOUR INITIAL REACTION IS TO THE COMPLAINT WE'VE HEARD A LOT AND OUR GOVERNMENT IP EXPERTS HAVE ENDORSED, THAT URS HAS JUST LOST ITS WAY.
I MEAN, PETER, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD SOME SYMPATHY FOR THAT. SO WE ARE SHARING A COMMON OBJECTIVE, I TAKE IT IN BRINGING THIS THING BACK ON COURSE, IF YOU'D LIKE, AND RESTORING ITS EFFECTIVENESS. SO SOME SORT OF -- BEFORE WE GO INTO DETAILED DISCUSSION TOMORROW, SOME SORT OF SHARED UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT IS NOW A PROBLEM THAT WE SHARE.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: PERHAPS I PUT MY FOOT IN MY MOUTH BY REFLECTING MY TRADEMARK TRIAL LAWYER BIAS. BUT THE OTHER -- WHAT I HAVE TO COUNTER THAT WITH IS, OF COURSE, THAT PROCESS WAS QUITE OF A WELL-DOCUMENTED, WELL-DISCUSSED COMMUNITY PROCESS. THE PUSHBACK FROM THAT HAS COME FROM EQUATED STATISTICS THAT SAID THE TRADEMARK OWNERS DIDN'T LIKE IT. BUT THE FACT IS THAT ALL THE COMMUNITY IS FOR IT FOR THEIR OWN PARTICULAR INTEREST GROUP. THE FREE SPEECH PEOPLE HAVE A VIEW. THE USER -- WE HAVE HAD A STRONG REPRESENTATION ON ELEMENTS ON THIS FROM THE USER COMMUNITY WHO WANTS TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT PUT IN A POSITION BY WEALTHY BRAND OWNERS. EVERYBODY HAS GOT THEIR OWN VIEW ON THIS.
WHAT OUR DIFFICULTY IS HAVING HAD THAT PROCESS AND HAVING REACHED A REASONABLE KIND OF COMMUNITY BALANCE AFTER A LONG AND VERY PROPER, IF YOU'D LIKE, ICANN PROCESS, WE GOT QUITE A LOT OF PERSUADING TO UNDO A COMMUNITY PROCESS. WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION EARLIER IN RELATION TO VERTICAL INTEGRATION. WHAT IS THE BOARD'S ABILITY TO START UNDOING THAT WHEN THERE ISN'T CONSENSUS.
HERE WE'VE GOT CONSENSUS. JUST PUTTING YOU IN THE CONTEXT THAT WE'RE IN.
>>MARK CARVELL: THANKS, PETER. I MEAN, I DIDN'T WANT TO SORT OF RAISE THIS REALLY BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF HISTORY AND WE WANTED TO SORT OF FOCUS ON WHAT WE'VE GOT NOW AND HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT WHEN WE IN THE U.K. CONVENED A MEETING WITH STAKEHOLDERS, ONE OF THE BIGGEST MESSAGES THAT CAME OVER IN TALKING TO -- I WAS AMAZED ACTUALLY WHEN AROUND THE TABLE WITH ME WERE THE LIKES OF BBC, SHELL, REALLY BIG GLOBAL NAMES THEY WEREN'T BEING LISTENED TO ANYMORE. THEY WERE SAYING ACTUALLY THIS PROCESS FROM IRT ONWARDS ACTUALLY HAD EFFECTIVELY DETACHED THEM.
SO THERE WAS A VERY STRONG NEGATIVE VIBE THAT ACTUALLY THAT PROCESS FROM IRT THROUGH STI AND BEYOND PROGRESSIVELY SIDELINED THOSE INTERESTS. AND WE ALSO HEARD IT FROM REPRESENTATIVES OF SMEs, TOO.
SO IT'S HISTORY. I DIDN'T WANT TO SORT OF EMBARK ON A RATHER NEGATIVE REFLECTION ON HOW PERHAPS THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL HAD NOT QUITE MATCHED THE EXPECTATIONS OF SOME VERY BIG PILLARS OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, IF YOU'D LIKE, THAT WERE SITTING OPPOSITE ME SAYING, WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENTS DO TO SORT OF RESTORE THEIR POSITION AT THE TABLE, IF YOU'D LIKE, IN THE ICANN COMMUNITY?
SO I JUST OFFER THAT SORT OF REFLECTION BACK TO YOU. AND I'M SURE THERE WAS SIMILAR EXPRESSIONS OF DISCONTENT RECEIVED FROM OTHER GAC MEMBERS, TOO. I JUST HAPPENED -- I MEAN, IN THE U.K., A LOT OF THESE BIG GLOBAL BRANDS ARE HEADQUARTERED IN THE U.K. SO THEY TURNED UP AT MY DOOR. THANKS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, U.K. I THINK YOU ARE ABOUT TO HEAR WITH ANOTHER GAC COLLEAGUE WITH SHARE SHE'S REMARKS. DENMARK.
>>DENMARK: THANK YOU. IN DENMARK, WE HAVE AGREED WITH WHAT MARK HAS JUST SAID, RIGHTS HOLDERS IN DENMARK, SOME LARGE ONES, LIKE LEGO, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHERS, ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THIS PROCESS AND THEY FEEL THEY HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD IN THIS PROCESS. THEY HAVE FED INTO THE ICANN MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL WITH LETTERS AND FEEL STILL THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD. SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE RAISING THE BAR ON THIS ISSUE. YEAH. THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU.
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: I JUST WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT. I THINK WE DEFINITELY HEARD THAT ON THE CALLS THAT WE HAD PREPARING FOR THIS SESSION. AND I THINK THE BOARD IS UNHAPPY THAT'S THE WAY THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY FEEL. THAT WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE BOARD AT ALL. I JUST HAVE TWO RESPONSES, I GUESS.
ONE, TO MARK, HOW DOES THE BOARD FEEL ABOUT GETTING BACK TO A PRINCIPLE OF RAPID SUSPENSION AND MAKING IT MORE RAPID? THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE A VIEW ON THIS, WHICH GETS TO MY SECOND RESPONSE, WHICH IS WE HEARD THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF ISSUES WITH BIG BRAND OWNERS, I'LL CALL THEM, AND CONCERNS RIGHTLY SO ABOUT HOW ARE HUNDREDS OF NEW gTLDs GOING TO IMPACT MY BRAND AND MY COST STRUCTURE, IF YOU WILL.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE RESOLUTION THE BOARD PASSED WHEN FORMING THE IRT, WE WERE VERY SPECIFIC TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAD TO DO WITH, WE'LL SAY, TRADEMARK RIGHTS KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE. WE WANTED TO HAVE PEOPLE THAT KNEW FROM ALL TYPES OF BUSINESSES AND ALL TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS AROUND THE WORLD HOW WILL THIS IMPACT ME SO WE CAN GET PEOPLE TO START FROM THAT POSITION AND THEN HAVE COMMUNITY, THIS MULTISTAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY INPUT.
SO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE GAC IS SAYING NOW THE URS SORT OF GOT DILUTED, THAT IS A RESULT OF THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL APPROACH. SO THE BOARD HAS TRIED TO OVERSEE THAT AS BEST AS POSSIBLE AND FOSTER THAT CONSENSUS. THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE. BUT WE REALLY ARE SORRY PEOPLE DON'T FEEL THEY'RE LISTENED TO BECAUSE THE BOARD HAS TRIED TO LISTEN TO EVERYONE AND FOSTER A SCENARIO WHERE EVERYONE HAS INPUT THAT WILL END UP RESULTING IN, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, IT IS A U.S. COLLOQUIALISM, A HODGEPODGE OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT TRY TO COME TO A RESULT THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO ALL PEOPLE. THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MOVE, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR INPUT AND JUST TRY TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OKAY. WE HAVE GOT THREE -- SORRY. SÉBASTIEN?
>>SÉBASTIEN BACHOLLET: YES, THANK YOU. AS I'M ALLOWED TO SPEAK HERE AND THERE ARE PEOPLE OBSERVING HERE WHO ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT IF SOME LARGE COMPANY ARE COMING TO YOUR DOORS IN YOUR COUNTRY TO THE GOVERNMENT, I AM NOT SURE THAT THE DOOR ALSO IS OPEN FOR END USERS -- INDIVIDUAL END USERS. AND THEY ARE PARTICIPATING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THEY WERE NOT IN THE URS BUT THEY WERE PARTICIPATING IN THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
AND I HAVE THE FEELING THAT THE BOARD DECISION -- AND I WAS NOT A BOARD MEMBER WHEN THIS DECISION WAS TAKEN -- IS A COMPROMISE ABOUT ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE LISTENED FROM THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES AND PARTICIPATED IN THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER.
AND I REALLY WOULD LIKE THAT YOU TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT ALSO IN PUSHING ONE OR THE OTHER BECAUSE AT THE END, THE BOARD HAS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THAT AND MAKE A DECISION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS, SÉBASTIEN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT TRADEMARKS FROM BOARD MEMBERS?
IF NOT, LET ME SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MARK, FOR THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE CONTINUING IN SOME DETAIL, I GUESS, THIS AFTERNOON, TONIGHT AND TOMORROW ON THIS BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF DETAIL HERE AND WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL FOR THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE. THANK YOU, RITA, ALSO TO YOU AND YOUR TEAM FOR GETTING TO GRIPS WITH THIS AT SHORT NOTICE.