(To those unfamiliar with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), their meeting structure, and the goals of the organization, a fellow IPilogue writer has written a covering this.)

This article takes an inquisitive approach to the content of three important sessions that were held during the Toronto ICANN meeting. Below you will find a summary of the important points that were laid down during each of the presentations, the questions that were asked by members of the IP and tech community, and a discussion of the challenges that ICANN will have to resolve before the new gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) program is fully rolled out.

The Trade-mark Clearinghouse (TMCH) has been developed by ICANN as a that will be used for gLTD registrations. It has been envisioned as a “one-stop-shop” for trade-mark data and as such will have several important functions, specifically: to perform verification of trade-marks, to maintain a database of this information, and to support rights protection mechanisms of new gTLDs. On June 1^st, 2012, ICANN that they would be working with Deloitte and IBM (which in turn subcontracted IPClearingHouse) to provide the TMCH services in support of the new gTLDs.

A representative from Deloitte made a presentation concerning the implementation of the TMCH. The following is a quick break-down of the main topics discussed within the presentation:

• To be eligible for registration with the TMCH, one has to be an agent of a mark holder or be the mark holder themselves. However, only the holders of certain marks can register (for example, marks containing a “.” are ineligible to register). Submissions would have to include appropriate proof of use of the mark in order to be eligible.
• The domain name applied for must be identical to the textual elements of the trade-mark. With the exception of “@” and “&” that have been permitted to be spelled out in text, other special characters need to be omitted or replaced with a hyphen.
• In aiding the dispute resolution process, the TMCH will provide notices to registrants and mark holders when discrepancies in applications arise. There are 3 ways in which disputes can arise: 1. The applicant does not agree with the verification; 2. A 3^rd party does not agree with the verification; or 3. A 3^rd party has become aware of new info that will impact a valid trade-mark record.
• Lastly covered in the presentation was a demonstration of the working .

However, an important objective of ICANN is to generate community discussion and incorporate suggestions from the different groups involved in the process. The most important issues that came up during this period were: 1) What stops a fraudulent registration from occurring? 2) How can a trade-mark agent register on behalf of their clients and provide the mark holders access to while keeping information of other clients secret? and 3)��How would 3^rd parties even know about registration of certain marks in order to file a dispute?

With respect to the first��issue, the panelists stated that the process would not be completely automated and therefore some human element would be involved in fact-checking registrations. However, I would expect the potential number of trade-marks being registered would create a large quantity of work for TMCH verifiers should every case require this human element. The second��issue had been previously discussed and ICANN has been trying to implement a technical work-around to this problem. However, the panelists did not, in my opinion, have a good answer to the third��issue raised. In summary, they stated that individuals might stumble onto information which they know is incorrect and then file a dispute as a result. Given the number of trade-marks that will be involved in the system and the international nature of the TMCH, I don't think that this sequence of events would occur very often in practice.

In this session, much of the discussion centered on the ways in which the TMCH would be interacting with other groups during the sunrise and trade-mark claims processes.

In order to register during the sunrise period, ICANN has developed a model where public and private encryption keys are used to verify mark details. The TMCH (the asserter) will provide mark holders with a Signed Mark Data (SMD) file which has been digitally signed with a private key. The SMD is then forwarded to the applicable registry (the verifier) which has a public key. This public key will determine the validity of the digital signature but does not contain any important information (hence, being the “public” key). If the SMD is altered, modified, or signed by the incorrect private key, the public key will show that the info is unverified and action can be taken as necessary. One of the main benefits to this system is that verification of the initial trade-mark data need only be done by the TMCH once. As a result, the process is “decoupled” (there would be little to no reliance on the TMCH by the registries) which is one of the main goals for the process.

One of the attendees described the idea as “lightning in a bottle” and few clear issues with the process were brought up. However, it was suggested that if mark holders wanted to only use one SMD for all registries, those registries would have to determine the standard information needed to be included in the SMD file.

Concerning the trade-mark claims period, the spotlight was on the differences between a centralized and a decentralized model of the TMCH. The current ICANN model is a decentralized approach which has registries being provided with encrypted info, allowing greater decoupling of the entities but potentially putting the information at greater risk. The centralized model has the TMCH retaining all relevant info, making it slightly easier for them to control the flow of this information but increasing reliance of the registries on the TMCH as a result. While there is really no right or wrong answer to this question, different players in the process have different beliefs on how this should be approached. As an example, one panelist mentioned that as a representative of a registry, he would rather have a centralized model where less responsibility is placed on his shoulders. It is important to keep in mind that while mark data is public information as a part of its nature, the aggregate mark information could be viewed as very valuable, putting it at risk of potential data mining.

While it places a greater burden on the TMCH, I think the centralized model seems to be the direction ICANN needs to head towards. This model allows for greater flexibility in the future, providing better opportunities to expand and to alter their approach to registration and mark protection. As noted by one of the panelists at the conclusion of the session, it will be up to each business to decide whether or not to put their marks in the TMCH. By doing so, they will have to understand the risks involved as well as the benefits and evaluate if submitting to the TMCH is the correct decision for the business.

The last session that I will comment on concerned the URS process that ICANN has adopted to cheaply and efficiently resolve clear cut cases of registration abuse (such as cybersquatting). The National Arbitration FORUM, WIPO, and Brad Bertoglio (a legal process outsourcing expert) made presentations with respect to the URS process that was proposed to ICANN in the . While there was some disagreement between the presenters as to whether the pricing goals for this process could be met, all of them commented that there was still work needed to be done to flesh out the policy documents. It was also noted by WIPO and Mr. Bertoglio that we would have to automate the process as much as possible to arrive close to the suggested price point. WIPO presented a model () that would require supplemental fees in the case of contested disputes. This model could serve as an option to efficient and cheap resolution while still allowing for more complex matters to be determined appropriately.

Conclusion

ICANN has opened the floor to community discussion on many of these topics on their . It will be necessary for them to receive this feedback in order to consider all facets of implementation and the implications their actions will have on the players of the industry. Even though there has been a lot of progress with respect to the development of the Trade-mark Clearinghouse and the new gTLD system, ICANN and its partners still have a lot of work ahead of them if they want the launch of these initiatives to be as smooth as possible.

Adam Del Gobbo is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post The Sun Sets on ICANN 45 - Reviewing the gTLD Implementation Plan appeared first on IPOsgoode.

,��,����a����for stakeholder engagement along with his strategy and goals for what he called the “new season” of ICANN. ��Officials��,����and����were also on hand to welcome delegates both to the conference and Toronto.

What is ICANN?

Very simply, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers () is part of an “ecosystem” of organizations that collectively work to provide governance to the Internet.

Like the����itself, this ecosystem is decentralized and international.�� No one person or organization governs the Internet.�� Instead, governance is performed by a����network of interconnected groups which draw from civil society, the private sector, governments, academic and research communities, and national and international organizations. Other major organizations that are part of this ecosystem include��,��,��,��, the five��,��,��,��, and.

Together, these organizations aim to work cooperatively��within their respective roles to create shared policies and standards that maintain the Internet’s global interoperability for .

Within this ecosystem, ICANN is responsible for coordinating the Internet's systems of unique identifiers and “ensuring the systems’ ”.�� In this role, it contributes to global Internet Policies which are the shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution of the Internet.�� It also influences global Internet Standards which enable the interoperability of systems on the Internet by defining��,��,��, and��.

Like many internet governance organizations, ICANN takes a community- and consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder approach to its����and seeks to maintain a broad representation of the global online community.

What is ICANN 45?

ICANN45 is the third of three ICANN meetings held in 2012.�� ICANN has generally held three����each year since 1999.����Attendance is open to the public and free to all registrants.�� The����of these meetings is to provide an opportunity for “an internationally diverse group of individuals and organizations to come together and discuss and develop policies for the Internet’s naming systems”.�� Remote participation is also available and also free to the public.

Re-Cap of The ICANN 45��Welcome Ceremony

, chairman of the��,��was the first to welcome��attendees to Toronto.�� In his opening remarks he praised Canada’s contribution to��the evolution of��global��.�� He cited Canadian innovations such as (the world’s first domestic satellite), (the Internet search engine), and the (the world's first public broadcaster to go online) as examples of Canadian contribution to global communication. ��Crocker also paid homage to University of Toronto’s Dr. who coined the phrases “” and “” in the 1960s.�� Two concepts, Crocker said, that continue to shape the way the online community about the Internet.

Crocker also provided an update on the activity of the board of directors, listing the renewal of the dot com registry in Prague and the passage of the budget as some recent milestones that were passed.

,����president and CEO,��was the second to welcome attendees to Toronto.�� He briefly introduced ICANN President & CEO and highlighted the importance of the items on the agenda this week.

, president of the Canadian Treasury Board, was the last to welcome the members of ICANN to Toronto.�� Speaking on behalf of the Canadian government, he gave a passionate endorsement of ICANN's multi-stakeholder model. ��He also outlined some of the steps the Canadian government has done to embrace online innovation in the public sector such as the government’s��, a project that aims to make large amounts of government data available online, allowing citizens and researchers to analyze and combine data for various purposes.

Re-Cap of The President’s Opening Session: A Bold New Vision

, current President & CEO of ICANN, then��took the stage��to run a one-hour working session on the objectives and goals for his three year term.�� With the sudden , many in the online community have been to get a sense of the man who will be taking the helm of one of the web’s largest policy and standards organizations.

In his opening remarks, Chehadé drew attention to��, the Pakastani schoolgirl who was����earlier this week presumably for her�� promoting education for girls in Pakistan.

“I ask us all to keep her in our thoughts.�� I, for sure, will offer my week, my successes, my failures, everything that happens this week, for her to be better and to get well.�� But let’s not forget that this is why we do this.�� At the end of the day this is why we do this.”

Chehadé then got down to business, unveiling 4 objectives of the ICANN executive team, drawing attention to ICANN’s��. He then outlined 16 specific goals the executive team has set to help achieve those objectives. ��The objectives and goals are as follows:

1. To continue to affirm the purpose of ICANN
   1. Deliver core Internet functions
   2. Act as steward of��public interest
   3. Engage in the Internet Governance ecosystem
   4. Deepen partnerships with Internet-organizations
2. To Continue to improve operations of ICANN
   1. Institutionalize management disciplines
   2. Embrace mature organization support functions
   3. Optimize R&R services
   4. Plan for scale, security, and continuity
3. To Continue to Internationalize ICANN
   1. Engage all stakeholders globally
   2. Communicate clearly & locally
   3. Integrate global/regional responsibility
   4. Evolve government relationships
4. To Continue To Model Evolution
1. Optimize policy develop process
2. Increase/ improve participation
3. Evolve supporting organization/advisory committee structures
4. Promote ethics & transparency

Release of MyICANN.org

Chehadé then unveiled , a new online tool designed to provide better access to the ICANN community and its operation systems. ��will be deployed in phases. The first phase will comprise mainly of the informational portal offering personal delivery of topical and timely information. Later phases will include the new community collaboration tools for working groups and operations systems, such as trouble tickets or compliance scorecards. The next beta will be released next year at ICANN 46 in Beijing.

Canadian Significance

In this seminal work, , Dr. McLuhan wrote that “each medium, independent of the content it mediates, has its own intrinsic effects which are its unique message” (Understanding Media, NY, 1964, p8). �� Certainly ICANN, minder of the Internet's unique identifiers,��is no stranger to this concept. As has already been pointed out by on this blog, the introduction gTLDs as a medium is as as the content of the websites that will be using them.

So as the leaves turn red in Toronto, the online community will be�� to see what this new season at ICANN will bring.

Beatrice Sze is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post "It's a New Season at ICANN": Chehadé to Focus on Public Interest, Internationalization, and Operational Efficiency appeared first on IPOsgoode.

��are the three or more character codes that appear at the end of an internet address (e.g. the com in .com, or the net in .net).�� They are also referred to as gTLD “”. ��As of����ICANN began accepting applications for new gTLDs which would expand the list of possible gTLDs to include any word that a registrant wants to use, provided they pay a $185,000 (USD) fee.�� These new gTLDs are registered to a single person/corporation, and as such, there are some concerns from businesses about an increase in cases of cybersquatting or trade-mark infringement.

Resolving Application Issues

The registration process which will be used by ICANN in assigning these new gTLDs has been outlined, but is still subject to��.�� With 2000 initial applications for new gTLDs in 2012, ICANN has been put in the position of resolving conflicts between applicants applying for the same or similar gTLDs, with the evaluation process outlined in sections of the gTLD����(hereafter “Guidebook”).�� The Evaluation stage of the process tries to exclude applicants based on past history of cybersquatting to limit cases of bad faith registration of gTLDs (section 2.1 of the Guidebook). ��In addition, the Evaluation stage will take into account visual similarity between the applicant’s string, existing TLDs, other applied-for strings and reserved names (2.2.1.1 Guidebook).�� This similarity is determined initially by a string review panel (2.2.1.1.1 Guidebook).

If the applicant’s string is too similar to an existing TLD or to a reserved name (reserved by ICANN, list in 2.2.1.2.1 Guidebook) then the applicant with be notified that the string cannot be registered (2.2.1.1.3 Guidebook).�� If however, the string is merely similar or identical to another that has been applied for, then the two strings will be classified as contended.�� Even if a similar string is not caught by the review panel, another applicant can still formally object to it on bases which include similarity to their own string (3.2.2.1 Guidebook) or a trade-mark infringement (3.2.2.2 Guidebook).�� If unresolved, the applicants enter the dispute resolution process which will result, based on the opinions of a panel of experts (3.2 Guidebook), in either the objected application being rejected, or the application proceeding in the registration process (including string contention procedures, 4.1.2 Guidebook).

Resolving string contention is done through either community priority evaluation or through auction (4.1 Guidebook).�� Community priority evaluation is only available to applications that are classified as community-based rather than as standard applications (4.2.1 Guidebook).�� These applications are subject to additional qualifications when compared to “standard” applications.�� Therefore when contention arises, a panel can judge the worth of a particular application based on the qualifications of the community trying to register the string (4.2.2 Guidebook).�� Most contentions however, don’t fall under this category, and therefore are resolved by auction.

As a method of last resort for resolving contention issues, auctions are held by ICANN to determine which application will be accepted (4.3 Guidebook).�� The contesting parties bid on the additional price of registration of the contested string, with only the highest bidder able to move to the delegation phase of the application. ��All proceeds from the auction will be given to ICANN to be “used in a manner that supports directly ICANN’s Mission and Core Values and also allows ICANN to maintain its not for profit status” (4.3 Guidebook). ��The applicants also have the option of entering the application jointly, by modifying the application to reflect the agreement between the parties to both use the new string (4.1.3 Guidebook).

From the first����of applied-for strings (this application period ended May 30, 2012) it is clear that quite a few popular English words are contested among the new strings.�� ICANN 45 will be the first major opportunity for the ICANN system of resolving contested strings to be put into practice.�� It might also be an opportunity for ICANN to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the auction system.

When we consider what ICANN offers in these new gTLDs, the idea that any registrant can be issued almost any word based on paying a certain amount of money doesn’t fit within any of our systems of intellectual property protection.�� ICANN protects the public against confusion, in a similar way that trade-mark protection protects the public.�� Section 2.2.1.1.1 of the Guidebook states that “probability of user confusion” is the test to determine whether or not strings are too similar to each other for both to be registered.�� The wording is similar to that of the��, which protects against consumer confusion.�� The main difference between the two systems is that you are more limited in a trade-mark system in the kinds of words that you can register (sections 9 and 12 for example).�� In ICANN’s system, very general words such as “home” or “music”, which by themselves would never qualify for trade-mark protection, are now monopolized to the highest bidder who can then control all the use of that gTLD.�� That makes it the only system for protecting intellectual property in the world that offers protection based primarily upon a financial transaction.

It may be that auction is the only workable final method for resolving contestation under the new gTLD system. ��Certainly, ICANN identifies it as a Mechanism of last resort in the����in section 4.3. ��Once more of the contested strings are resolved, we might have a better picture for how monopolizing these new gTLDs will affect their use.�� It may be that many of the contesting parties in many of these cases will work out joint agreements, in order for all of them to have access to the string.�� Or it may be that once monopolized, the winner of these auctions will allow opponents to use the string, provided they pay an outrageous fee for the privilege.�� Either way, the results of these deals and auctions will be of interest to the IP community in the coming months.

Resolving Issues Post-Delegation

To address the ongoing trade-mark��, ICANN issued a request for information outlining a new system for protecting against cybersquatting and trade-mark infringements. ��This proposed Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) will act as a complement to the current protections offered by ICANN. This system will apply to gTLDs which have already been issued by ICANN, but may infringe a trade-mark or have been registered in bad faith. The new policy, as proposed, offers the advantage of being����($300-500 USD fee), as well as faster (no timeline yet given).

Access to the new system, however, will require clear evidence of wrongdoing by the registrant.�� This might allow persons less knowledgeable in the area of cybersquatting to make deal with disputes. However, it does not deliver an identical result to that of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy () which has been traditionally used by ICANN for resolving these issues.�� Under the UDRP, if an instance of cybersquatting is proven then the board can make an order to have the bad faith registrant assign the domain name to the complainant.�� The new policy, though faster, will only serve to suspend use of the domain name.

These two systems ensure that persons who did not make objections to the gTLDs during the evaluation stage can still lodge a complaint with ICANN to resolve trade-mark or cybersquatting issues.�� However, it may be too soon to tell whether all of the protections ICANN has offered adequately protect trade-mark holders.�� ICANN 45 may be an opportunity to see the level of confidence that the public and members of ICANN have with the current gTLD system, and whether changes need to be made. ��The IPilogue will have an editor at ICANN 45 to report on these issues as they unfold.

Adam Stevenson is a JD Candidate at Western University, faculty of law.

The post ICANN 45: gTLD System Put to the Test appeared first on IPOsgoode.