ICANN
Many people are still concerned about IP protection under the new system. Are you satisfied that the Trademark Clearinghouse will provide robust protection?*
“WE’VE DONE A LOT OF MITIGATION ON CYBERSQUATTING. THE FACT THAT WE’RE OPENING UP THE SPACE PROVIDES A LOT MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO GET EXACTLY THE NAMES THEY WANT.”
It took seven years of discussion to get to where we are today. Te model is all about compromise for everybody. I’m sure that nobody’s getting really what they want but everybody had to compromise to get to where we are. Can we do more for IP protection? Of course there’s more we can do, but at the same time, there’s more that we can do for liberty and freedom of choice. So there are a lot of issues that are involved and we have to do a balancing act so that everybody’s happy.
We arrived at the Trademark Clearinghouse agreement, and for now I’m very happy with that. As for will the community or the entire environment say that we need to go further—I think the community is happy with the status quo. If there are needs, the model is always open for consideration of new issues. Tere are possibilities to do more, and I have no doubt ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) will push for that and bring the other stakeholders to the table to discuss those.
Will the Clearinghouse actually save users any money, or is it an increased cost?
Te rationale is that the new gTLD programme is going to be active for about a year, or maybe longer, from now. About 1,500 registries are going to move from application to actual registries that have to be supported—the idea is that the team that’s doing the new gTLD programme will move to support the registries and registrars over that period. We want to transition them from applicant support to registry and registrar support.
There have been some changes to the schedule from initial estimates of early 2013 to launch the first new registries. What’s the current position?
When we decided on early 2013, it was because we were going to process batches of 500 applications—we were going to have four batches, or
something like that. Tat didn’t
work out well—we went through a period of not knowing how to do it all, and whether we would release the whole thing at the end. Now we’ve decided to do a draw to put the applications in order and we’ll try to get them out in this order. Te first batch will come out in March, finishing off everything by the end of June. Te initial evaluation results will be announced during that period. Tat doesn’t mean they can go live directly because there are other steps once they’ve passed the initial evaluation.
If there are no complications and no objections they can move towards contracting, and if they
18
agree to the contract as is then they can move very quickly into delegation. But we will not actually let anyone go to delegation until aſter the Beijing ICANN meeting in April 2013. Te reason for that is that we want to hear from the Government Advisory Committee and give them a chance to provide advice, if they feel there is a need to, on any application. Tey promised they would do that shortly aſter Beijing. So we’ll wait for that and then release those to delegation. Te first half of next year is a good target for the first ones to go live.
Some people have complained that the draw will cost an extra $100. Are you concerned about the costs attached to the draw, given that applicants have already paid a large sum to get this far?
Not really—$100 should not be a problem for somebody that wants to have a new gTLD. If that’s a problem, then I wonder if a gTLD is appropriate for them. If they can’t afford that, then the costs of running the registry are going to be a problem. Te fee is a requirement of the rules. In order to do the raffle, we have to charge. Tere is a rule within the California gambling regulations that makes lotteries illegal. We have obtained an exception, but that means that every applicant has to buy a ticket and that money has to go to a charitable cause. We haven’t finalised it, but there will be a few causes that we will allow them to choose from.
Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 1, Issue 4
It’s not for me to judge that. Te IP community settled on this. Tey are the ones who wanted it. I think it will provide a good warning system that eliminates a lot of mistakes that people could make. Is that going to stop somebody who wants to do something illegal? Probably not. It’s not an enforcement type of application. It’s more of a notification system that tells people about marks behind something you are trying to register. If you’re an honest business person, you’re going to avoid registering that, because you don’t want to be in disputes with rights holders. If you’re doing something illegal then I don’t think that will make a difference, but at least it puts everybody on notice that this is protected.
Are you less likely to get cybersquatters on the new gTLDs, given the costs involved?
We’ve done a lot of mitigation on cybersquatting. Te fact that we’re opening up the space provides a lot more opportunity for people to get exactly the names they want. Tere should be fewer issues than on .com, for example.
One third of the application fees is going into a ‘war chest’ to deal with litigation and other issues down the line. Do you have any sense of what kinds of level of disputes you’ll be facing and does that money have any other purpose?
We call that the risk fund. Risk could come in many different ways, but the highest costs are likely to be
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52