SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • Congratulations upon re-election;-WHO chief.Priori... »
  • Great article. Ms. Chan may want to read our book ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Industry Still Wary Of ICANN Plan For New Top-Level Internet Domains

    Published on 15 September 2008 @ 10:22 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Liza Porteus Viana for Intellectual Property Watch
    The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has not adequately explained to the world the need for more generic top-level domains (gTLDs – such as .com), industry representatives said last week.

    As the time nears for ICANN, the internet’s technical oversight body, to publish draft guidelines (request for proposals) in the fourth quarter of 2008 for the gTLD applications, the chorus of criticism against the new domains is getting louder, with some saying it is merely a way for the global domain-name body to make money.

    “ICANN to my mind has not effectively answered the question,” J. Scott Evans, former chair of ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency and senior legal advisor for Yahoo, said during an International Trademark Association webcast Thursday. “I think ICANN sees itself as a market builder,” at least some on the ICANN board do, he added, so they are in favour of opening up and building a competitive marketplace on the web.

    “If that’s the view you take, then the more [gTLDs], the merrier. If you’re not, and you’re a trademark owner, all you see is a greater investment you have to take to these entities to protect your trademark from abuse,” Evans added.

    Evans likened the issue to a ‘land grab’, where real-estate is so scarce, it leads to a rush on that land that makes it more valuable. But not everybody wins in that process, he said.

    “The only thing we see here is more investment that we make initially up front to the owners and operators of these particular TLDs,” and more money spent by trademark owners to defend their brands against “nefarious uses.”

    ICANN spokesman Jason Keenan told Intellectual Property Watch on Friday that it is important to understand that the policy process works from the bottom up, based on ideas from the broader internet community.

    “The wider community that takes part in the ICANN process has said there should be the ability to apply for new gTLDs,” Keenan said when asked about the exact need for the gTLDs. “Those discussions have driven the policy development, and led to the work to establish a process for people to apply for new generic top-level domains.”

    Torsten Bettinger, a panellist for the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Arbitration and Mediation Centre, said the new gTLDs will give end users more choice about the nature of their presence on the internet. Users may be able to use domain names in the language of their choice. There is also demand for additional top-level domains as a business opportunity (for example, Microsoft could have .msn, and Google could have .google).

    “There will be no predefined number of gTLDs and the predictions are, there will already be hundreds of new gTLDs,” in the first round of applications, Bettinger told the 41st Congress of the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) in Boston last week.

    Since ICANN approved the new domain names in June, trademark owners have cited costs, confusion and cybersquatting as problems sure to skyrocket once the new gTLDs go live. Brand owners also say internet users are already frustrated over getting misdirected by cybersquatters who sometimes infect users’ computers with viruses and software to steal personal information – an activity many say surely will only increase.

    “These harmful practices will now get worse,” Claudio Di Gangi, INTA’s manager for external relations, internet and the judiciary, wrote in an editorial last week.

    “In the coming years, hundreds or thousands of new domain name suffixes could be approved, which will confuse consumers and raise new challenges for companies whose brands are already being exploited in the existing Internet domain space,” Di Gangi wrote. “Opening the floodgates of new website suffixes may certainly be profitable for ICANN, but brand owners, already suffering from the proliferation of trademark infringement on the Internet, will face increasing burdens.”

    Experts say there is more cybersquatting on the horizon in the form of domain-name tasting – where people register a domain name and place pay-per-click ads on it for five days to gauge whether the names generate money.

    Other activities likely to increase are: kiting (automatically registering, dropping and re-reregistering the domains so as to not have to pay for them); front-running (the practice of monitoring and stealing someone’s domain name search queries and registering the domain name before the original person can register it; and sniping (snatching up a domain name from the prior registrant the second the registration expires).

    “There is a lot of money at stake in cybersquatting,” and also a lot of money to be lost by individuals and businesses, Mark Partridge, a Chicago copyright and trademark lawyer, told AIPPI.

    ICANN Auction Details

    ICANN has not yet printed new guidelines for new gTLD applicants, and the cost of the application fees is still just speculation ($100,000 to $150,000 is the latest estimate, although some have been as high as $250,000). Keenan said both the application fees and guidelines are still being developed. The request for proposals, subject to community input, are scheduled to be released this November, around ICANN’s meeting in Egypt.

    But ICANN has released other details about how the process would work.

    The organisation last month published a paper making the economic case for auctions as a tie-breaking mechanism in the case of resolving disputes over identical or confusingly similar applications for new gTLDs.

    The paper says the auctions will increase efficiency through a transparent, objective and scalable process. It does not, however, address specific details on how they would resolve contentions among applicants for new TLD strings. ICANN is working with a design consultant on this issue.

    “While auctions are not perfectly aligned with ICANN’s objectives, alternative allocation mechanisms such as comparative evaluations and lotteries inherently have much more severe limitations and defects, as evidenced by the historical record and by the abandonment of these alternatives in other communications areas,” the paper states.

    ICANN on Thursday posted a summary of the 18 comments received on the paper during the month-long comment period, which ended on 7 September: 10 of the 18 were from individuals associated with potential gTLD applications or registries.

    Several commenters noted that the paper does not describe a proposed auction model or outline the use of funds from the potential auction of gTLD strings. ICANN says these topics will be the subject of separate documents to be posted along with a proposed budget for the new gTLD process prior to the Cairo meeting.

    Commenters also were concerned that the use of auctions would not meet the needs of community-based applicants or smaller TLDs intended for the public interest. Several acknowledged that the auction issue was complicated, and would be unlikely to satisfy everyone in the ICANN community.

    “No final decision has been made,” Keenan said.

    Meanwhile, ICANN announced Friday that as the result of the de-accreditation of registrar Esoftwiz Inc., accredited registrars are being sought to take over the 1,200 or so gTLD names managed by that company, which include registrations in the .com and .net registries. Those interested need to submit a written letter of interest to ICANN by 19 September.

    Liza Porteus Viana may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. HN Hoyt says:

      I dont get it- ICANN cannot control what they already had and their WHOIS problem database is cannot handle the present TLDs. This is extemely humorous- if it were not so sad.

      What we have here is another toothless government agency regulating the folks they work for. LOL.


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.