Comments on: TradeMark Holders Don’t Think The URS Is Tough Enough http://www.thedomains.com/2009/07/08/trademark-holders-dont-think-the-urs-proposal-is-tough-enough/ Mon, 15 Mar 2010 06:16:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Yet Another Reason To Support The ICA: The Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Is Knocked Out (For Now) | Domaining Manual http://www.thedomains.com/2009/07/08/trademark-holders-dont-think-the-urs-proposal-is-tough-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-19916 Yet Another Reason To Support The ICA: The Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Is Knocked Out (For Now) | Domaining Manual Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:50:14 +0000 http://www.thedomains.com/?p=4160#comment-19916 [...] Let me remind you that  trademark holders that didn’t think the URS was strong enough. [...] [...] Let me remind you that  trademark holders that didn’t think the URS was strong enough. [...]

]]> By: Seb http://www.thedomains.com/2009/07/08/trademark-holders-dont-think-the-urs-proposal-is-tough-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-16218 Seb Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:39:52 +0000 http://www.thedomains.com/?p=4160#comment-16218 You're right, if ICANN reads all the comments they'll notice there's a general consensus that new gTLD’s should NOT be approved. But they won't read that specific part of the comments... Paul Keating's alternative proposal is by far the most brilliant proposal i’ve read in a long time. I sincerely think it’s good for both trademarks owners facing obvious cybersquatting cases and for generic domain owners. You’re right, if ICANN reads all the comments they’ll notice there’s a general consensus that new gTLD’s should NOT be approved.
But they won’t read that specific part of the comments…

Paul Keating’s alternative proposal is by far the most brilliant proposal i’ve read in a long time.
I sincerely think it’s good for both trademarks owners facing obvious cybersquatting cases and for generic domain owners.

]]> By: Philip Corwin http://www.thedomains.com/2009/07/08/trademark-holders-dont-think-the-urs-proposal-is-tough-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-16210 Philip Corwin Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:07:54 +0000 http://www.thedomains.com/?p=4160#comment-16210 All through the ICANN meeting in Sydney we heard IRT members contend that their Report was "not a trademark wish list" and that they had "made many compromises". One member confided to me that he was taking flack because there was any cost to file a URS at all. When you read the trademark owners' comments you find out that what the IRT members said was true -- but only in the sense that they rejected the off-the-wall wishes of trademark owners that would not have passed the laugh test, and that the only compromises were within their own ranks. Now that the IRT has been dissolved and the comment period on their Report has closed -- and with it plain that there is no ICANN community consensus in its favor, and that attempting to adopt the URS or other new policy pieces of it would make a mockery of ICANN's policy process - the next question is why is ICANN spending lots of registrants' $money to fund a four city global promotional tour for the IRT Report? If you check out the agenda and speakers for the NYC and London events at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm you'll see that there is no balance at all, that critics of the Report are relegated to the audience. Just when you think ICANN can't make a bad process worse they show you that you're wrong! I'll be in NYC on Monday, July 13th on behalf of ICA, and urge others with IRT/URS concerns to show up and speak out. These Global Outreach events should have no impact whatsoever on what ICANN does with the IRT recommendations, because they stand totally outside the policy development and consensus/comment process and at best can only show that trademark interests support the IRT Report or think it didn't go far enough - they cannot and should not be cited as any evidence of broader support, and they cannot substitute for a legitimate Policy Development Process. Oh, and Johnny, send your comments again with a prefatory note that it was sent on July 6th and was not posted for some reason. It will get as much (or as little) attention as if it was posted on Monday. All through the ICANN meeting in Sydney we heard IRT members contend that their Report was “not a trademark wish list” and that they had “made many compromises”. One member confided to me that he was taking flack because there was any cost to file a URS at all. When you read the trademark owners’ comments you find out that what the IRT members said was true — but only in the sense that they rejected the off-the-wall wishes of trademark owners that would not have passed the laugh test, and that the only compromises were within their own ranks.

Now that the IRT has been dissolved and the comment period on their Report has closed — and with it plain that there is no ICANN community consensus in its favor, and that attempting to adopt the URS or other new policy pieces of it would make a mockery of ICANN’s policy process – the next question is why is ICANN spending lots of registrants’ $money to fund a four city global promotional tour for the IRT Report? If you check out the agenda and speakers for the NYC and London events at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm you’ll see that there is no balance at all, that critics of the Report are relegated to the audience. Just when you think ICANN can’t make a bad process worse they show you that you’re wrong!

I’ll be in NYC on Monday, July 13th on behalf of ICA, and urge others with IRT/URS concerns to show up and speak out. These Global Outreach events should have no impact whatsoever on what ICANN does with the IRT recommendations, because they stand totally outside the policy development and consensus/comment process and at best can only show that trademark interests support the IRT Report or think it didn’t go far enough – they cannot and should not be cited as any evidence of broader support, and they cannot substitute for a legitimate Policy Development Process.

Oh, and Johnny, send your comments again with a prefatory note that it was sent on July 6th and was not posted for some reason. It will get as much (or as little) attention as if it was posted on Monday.

]]> By: MHB http://www.thedomains.com/2009/07/08/trademark-holders-dont-think-the-urs-proposal-is-tough-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-16205 MHB Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:29:20 +0000 http://www.thedomains.com/?p=4160#comment-16205 That sucks That sucks

]]> By: Johnny http://www.thedomains.com/2009/07/08/trademark-holders-dont-think-the-urs-proposal-is-tough-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-16204 Johnny Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:28:08 +0000 http://www.thedomains.com/?p=4160#comment-16204 They did not post my comment even though I confirmed though the link sent to my email. They did not post my comment even though I confirmed though the link sent to my email.

]]>