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 Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas 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.

Quantitative Analysis Of Contributions To NETMundial Meeting

A quantitative analysis of the 187 submissions to the April NETmundial conference on the future of internet governance shows broad support for improving security, ensuring respect for privacy, ensuring freedom of expression, and globalizing the IANA function, analyst Richard Hill writes.


Latest Comments
  • Why should anyone care what James Anaya thinks? In... »
  • If this goes ahead, as the EU will "speak" for all... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    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 >

    ICANN IP Advisory Group: Whois, Dot-Brands, Contracts Key Sticking Points In New Domains

    Published on 11 May 2012 @ 8:23 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    Washington, DC – Wary eyes are on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which on 12 January opened a first window for applications for new generic top level domains (gTLDs), expected to be made public later this month.

    ICANN, the internet domain name system technical oversight body, has come under fire from trademark groups for trying to open up the internet’s real estate. ICANN says expanding the number of generic top-level domains (gTLDs, such as .com) will increase competition among private registry service providers, but many trademark owners think the move could result in a loss of ability for them to protect their intellectual property – many critically refer to the new gTLD process as “dot-anything” – and they want to ensure the strings of characters in domain names contain as few trademarked names as possible.

    Developing countries have also been critical of the lack of outreach in their part of the world on the new gTLD process and on ICANN processes, in general.

    Brands such as Yahoo! Inc. are particularly concerned that the new gTLD system won’t do enough to protect against cyber squatters and domain-name registrars grabbing up dot-brand names. Many applications are expected to come from brand owners who want control of their whole domain name – such as Japan-based electronics company Canon did when it applied for the .canon gTLD.

    Companies need to better identify people from their firms to participate in the gTLD process and not just send technical people to the meetings, J. Scott Evans, former president of the ICANN Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and head of Global Brand Domains & Copyright at Yahoo! said this week. “That’s a huge mistake – you’ve got to send policy people. You’ve got to have a coordinated message. That’s how China, Brazil, South Africa are doing it, because they’re concerned with the ‘Arab Spring’” and regime changes in the Middle East may affect the process.

    “We are at a critical juncture,” he added. “This could ruin our businesses, some of the ideas they’re coming up with.”

    Getting the ‘Right People’ to the Table

    The IPC is one of the six constituencies of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) charged with the responsibility of advising the ICANN board on policy issues relating to the management of the domain name system. The IPC met in Washington this week during the International Trademark Association (INTA) annual conference to discuss the gTLD process with stakeholders and trademark experts.

    Brian Wilterfeldt, the IPC representative to the GNSO council, said big changes are coming at ICANN, particularly for those applying for dot-brand names, and that the IPC is working with ICANN to stave off any problems that may arise.

    Winterfeldt, who is also partner at the Washington office of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, also said there likely will be negotiations over how, exactly, registry agreement contracts will be handled. ICANN wants to follow the process outlined in the Applicant Guidebook for New gTLDs, Winterfeldt said, but “my guess is, there’s going to be some issues there.”

    The IPC has put together a list of “top asks” from large and small companies regarding the agreements, and has circulated it among a small group of stakeholder groups for feedback.

    The IPC also wants to ensure continued public access to the Whois database, which provides data on registered domain names, including contact information for registered name holders. A Whois policy review team has been convened and its report of recommendations to ICANN was due on 30 April. Steve Metalitz, IPC president and partner at Washington law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, said it should be released soon. The ICANN board is required to act within six months of that release.

    The Whois report, Metalitz said, likely will include an obligation by ICANN to prioritize reducing Whois inaccuracies by 50 percent each year, along with other suggestions for improving the system, and creation of a more effective Whois policy. The IPC is also working to ensure ICANN updates Whois system. For example, there currently is no standardised way for dealing with registrant content data other than what is in Latin-based characters, he said; the new gTLDs could include non-Latin, and non-English scripts.

    “As we get more gTLDs that are using internationalized domain names” and get more domain name registrants from countries that don’t use the English alphabet, Metalitz said, “this is going to be an increasing problem.”

    “We need to get some of the right people at that table who understand why public access to Whois is so critical to trademark owners, copyright holders, to the general public, to law enforcement – really to the whole public interest,” Metalitz added.

    Lack of Complaint-Tracking Called ‘Criminal’

    ICANN had previously set the deadline for new gTLD applications at 12 April, but a technical glitch in its TAS application system caused that date to be extended.

    ICANN this week said it now anticipates 22 May to be the intended reopening date for TAS, and 30 May will be the cut-off date for registration applications.

    TAS had 2,091 applications either submitted or in progress when it was taken offline 12 April. In addition, there are 214 more potential applications that were registered prior, but whose payments had not been fulfilled. ICANN said it has received about $350 million in fees for applications for new gTLDs.

    But other technical systems also plague the gTLD system. Association for Competitive Technology President Jonathan Zuck, who has been working on several issues with ICANN on behalf of the IPC, said ICANN has been making short-term changes to systems and interfaces currently in place to make the process of tracking gTLD complaints more “user-friendly.” As of now, the system doesn’t track anything past the initial complaint; no more data has been collected over the past 10 years on this front.

    “It’s criminal that none of that information was available,” Zuck said.

    Suzanne Radell, senior policy advisor to the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) at the US Department of Commerce and the US representative to the ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), told gTLD stakeholders that “the level of interest on these issues around the GAC table is exceedingly high…. There’s shared support for ICANN to do the right thing.”

    It is expected that the GAC will analyse all applications – and applicants – and issue early warnings on what gTLD strings may cause problems within 60 days. But that timeframe is proving to be very optimistic. Not only are there so many applications, Radell said, but many governments want to give all of their agencies time to weigh in on applications for names like .bank. Plus, some states and cities in the US have expressed interest in obtaining domain names like .nyc or .miami.

    “There have been some states and state secretaries expressing concerns about certain possible strings. So we know the interest is there,” she said. “Other governments are encountering the same challenges.”

    Plus, all of the anticipated objections to applications for certain domain names need to be dealt with. On top of that, many of Europe’s government workers – those who haven’t been laid off amid budget crises – go on vacation in the summer, leaving even fewer people to weigh in on the applications.

    “There’s a strong concern among GAC members while, we certainly wish to be kept informed and aware of the concerns that rights holders have, it’s not entirely clear to us there’s going to be the resources available in each capital to deal with those objections.”

    Whether or not the GAC can sustain a rolling 60-day review for these applications will be a top question to deal with 24-29 June, when ICANN meets in Prague.

    Liza Porteus Viana may be reached at lizapviana@gmail.com.

     


    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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.227.141.230