← Older revision
Revision as of 21:48, 22 April 2014
Line 41:
Line 41:
==Membership==
==Membership==
The member organizations of CADNA are owners of several global brands. They jointly believe in the significance of online brands and trademarks protection. These organizations are represented by individuals who are experts in the field of Trademark Counsel, Online Marketing, Corporate and Government Affairs and Risk Management. A complete list of CADNA's membership can be found [http://www.cadna.org/en/members here.]
The member organizations of CADNA are owners of several global brands. They jointly believe in the significance of online brands and trademarks protection. These organizations are represented by individuals who are experts in the field of Trademark Counsel, Online Marketing, Corporate and Government Affairs and Risk Management. A complete list of CADNA's membership can be found [http://www.cadna.org/en/members here.]
+
+
==Educational Efforts==
+
On September 18, 2013, CADNA held an event to launch the Know Your Net Campaign to educate Internet users about the roll out and safe navigation of new gTLDs. Representative Tom Marino (R-PA) addressed the event. A panel discussion followed with Emily Eckland of the National Cyber Security Alliance, Anjali Hansen of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Melissa Madigan of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, and Leslie Nettleford (AARP). The event kicked off a month-long effort to "raise public awareness about the new gTLD program, its opportunities, and its challenges" and to "teach businesses, Internet users, and policymakers about the impact of cybersquatting and how to safely navigate the new Internet space." <ref>[http://cadna.org/eventsnew]</ref>
==ICANN Correspondence & Commentary==
==ICANN Correspondence & Commentary==
CADNA is fundamentally supportive of [[ICANN]] and its multi-stakeholder model, but has been critical of some of its decisions and actions, its [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]] in particular.<ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cadna-supports-the-multi-stakeholder-model-of-internet-governance-140886693.html CADNA Supports the MultiStakeholder Model of Internet Governance, PRNewsWire.com]</ref>
CADNA is fundamentally supportive of [[ICANN]] and its multi-stakeholder model, but has been critical of some of its decisions and actions, its [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]] in particular.<ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cadna-supports-the-multi-stakeholder-model-of-internet-governance-140886693.html CADNA Supports the MultiStakeholder Model of Internet Governance, PRNewsWire.com]</ref>
−
CADNA provided comments on numerous issues discussed by the ICANN community,
particularly
the
latest
issue of the implementation of the [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD expansion program]],
which launched in January
,
2012
. During the development process of the New gTLD [[Applicant Guidebook]], CADNA
was
been
active in submitting its public comments and recommendations. The organization recommended the following revisions to the Draft Application Guidebook Version 4:<ref>
+
CADNA provided comments on numerous issues discussed by the ICANN community,
including
the issue of the implementation of the [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD expansion program]]
. Once an opponent of the new gTLD program
,
CADNA reversed its position once the ICANN Board approved the program. CADNA's focus shifted to addressing brand-owner concerns about the program roll out and more recently
,
educating the public about the roll out of new gTLDs to ensure safe Internet experiences
. During the development process of the New gTLD [[Applicant Guidebook]], CADNA was active in submitting its public comments and recommendations. The organization recommended the following revisions to the Draft Application Guidebook Version 4:<ref>
[http://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-guide/pdfxYPf2O79Wh.pdf Comments on the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version]</ref>
[http://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-guide/pdfxYPf2O79Wh.pdf Comments on the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version]</ref>
−
* [[Intellectual Property]] should be a priority in background checks - CADNA wanted to know
the
about the selection criteria and detailed information on the agency that will be chosen to conduct background checks. It believes that checking the history of intellectual property violations should be the top priority of background checks.
+
* [[Intellectual Property]] should be a priority in background checks - CADNA wanted to know about the selection criteria and detailed information on the agency that will be chosen to conduct background checks. It believes that checking the history of intellectual property violations should be the top priority of background checks.
* ICANN should require proof of good standing - CADNA argued that it is necessary to require applicants to prove their good standing early on to prevent a waste of time and resources.
* ICANN should require proof of good standing - CADNA argued that it is necessary to require applicants to prove their good standing early on to prevent a waste of time and resources.
* [[Whois]] requirements should be uniform - The organization reiterated that ICANN should be specific in its rules and ensure the maintenance of an accurate Whois Database.
* [[Whois]] requirements should be uniform - The organization reiterated that ICANN should be specific in its rules and ensure the maintenance of an accurate Whois Database.
* Mandatory [[Sunrise Period]] should not hold domain names hostage - CADNA recognized the importance of the Sunrise period and suggested that domain names should not be offered at a very high price. [[Registry|Registries]] should prioritize trademark owners to register their domain names and it shouldn't be too expensive.
* Mandatory [[Sunrise Period]] should not hold domain names hostage - CADNA recognized the importance of the Sunrise period and suggested that domain names should not be offered at a very high price. [[Registry|Registries]] should prioritize trademark owners to register their domain names and it shouldn't be too expensive.
* [[Trademark Clearinghouse]] should be more than a database - CADNA proposed that ICANN needs to further review the purpose of the Clearinghouse as a mechanism for the protection of trademarks and not just a mere repository for information.
* [[Trademark Clearinghouse]] should be more than a database - CADNA proposed that ICANN needs to further review the purpose of the Clearinghouse as a mechanism for the protection of trademarks and not just a mere repository for information.
−
* Certain Clearinghouse services should be limited -
What
entities
that
will be given
the right
to
access
the data services of the Clearinghouse
should be clarified by ICANN
. In addition,
the organization suggested
ICANN develop and implement mechanisms to guard
data
and guarantee its exclusive use by relevant trademark owners.
+
* Certain Clearinghouse services should be limited -
ICANN should clarify which
entities will be given
access
to the data services of the Clearinghouse. In addition, ICANN
should
develop and implement mechanisms to guard
information
and guarantee its exclusive use by relevant trademark owners.
−
* The term "text mark" should be clearly defined -
CADNA asked
ICANN
to
clarify what constitutes a text mark.
+
* The term "text mark" should be clearly defined - ICANN
should
clarify what constitutes a text mark.
−
* Cost should be shared by stakeholders -
CADNA emphasized that the
beneficiaries of the Trademark Clearinghouse are not only brand owners, therefore the costs should be borne by all stakeholders.
+
* Cost should be shared by stakeholders -
The
beneficiaries of the Trademark Clearinghouse are not only brand owners, therefore
,
the costs should be borne by all stakeholders.
−
* Decision on third-party contractor should be open and transparent -
The organization encouraged
ICANN
to
select a contractor with a strong background in trademark protection issues and the
process
should be
done
in an open and transparent manner.
+
* Decision on third-party contractor should be open and transparent - ICANN
should
select a contractor with a strong background in trademark protection issues
,
and the
selection
should be
made
in an open and transparent manner.
−
* The [[URS]] should be able to transfer domain names,
expedit
and utilize forms
+
* The [[URS]] should be able to transfer domain names,
expedite,
and utilize forms
.
−
*
On
Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure ([[PDDRP]])
,
CADNA suggested the following:
+
* Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure ([[PDDRP]])
-
CADNA suggested the following:
−
:1. Registry operators should be held accountable for certain domain name infringements
occurrences
within their registries.
+
:1. Registry operators should be held accountable for certain domain name infringements within their registries.
:2. PDDRP should not unnecessarily burden complainant
:2. PDDRP should not unnecessarily burden complainant
:3. Expert panel decisions should be enforced
:3. Expert panel decisions should be enforced
Line 68:
Line 71:
===Praise of ICANN & The Multi-Stakeholder Model===
===Praise of ICANN & The Multi-Stakeholder Model===
−
In February, 2012, CADNA issued a statement that it fundamentally supported ICANN and its multi-stakeholder model.
It seems the
statement was
made
in response to
others' recent criticism of ICANN and
the
desire
by some countries and stakeholders to
move
authority over the [[Root Zone|root zone]] to the United Nations and its [[ITU|International Telecommunications Union]]. The statement also thanked [[Larry Strickling]] and [[NTIA]] for educating the American business community that it
too had to
be involved in ICANN's multi-stakeholder model
in order
to best protect their interests. While CADNA still
has
problems with [[ICANN]]'s [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]], it
is still
supportive of the organization and is opposed to any effort to strip ICANN of its current authority.<ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cadna-supports-the-multi-stakeholder-model-of-internet-governance-140886693.html CADMA Supports The Multi-Stakeholder Model of Internet Governance, PRNewsWire.com]</ref>
+
In February, 2012, CADNA issued a statement
declaring
that it fundamentally supported ICANN and its multi-stakeholder model.
The
statement was
issued
in response to the
call
by some countries and
ICANN
stakeholders to
transfer
authority over the [[Root Zone|root zone]] to the United Nations and its [[ITU|International Telecommunications Union]]. The statement also thanked [[Larry Strickling]] and [[NTIA]] for educating the American business community that it
must
be involved in ICANN's multi-stakeholder model to best protect their interests. While CADNA
noted that it
still
had
problems with
the way that
[[ICANN]]'s [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]]
was being rolled out
, it
remains
supportive of the organization and is opposed to any effort to strip ICANN of its current authority.<ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cadna-supports-the-multi-stakeholder-model-of-internet-governance-140886693.html CADMA Supports The Multi-Stakeholder Model of Internet Governance, PRNewsWire.com]</ref>
===Recommendations for Perpetual Blocks===
===Recommendations for Perpetual Blocks===
−
In September, 2012, CADNA sent a letter to [[ICANN]], its [[GAC]], and the U.S. [[NTIA|National Telecommunications and Information Administration]] to request that all new, open [[gTLD]] registries are required to implement a Perpetual Block Option or a [[DPML|Domain Protected Marks List]] (DPML). A perpetual block option would allow a given corporation to protect
their
IP and trademarks through a one-time registration, and was compared by CADNA to the model used by [[ICM Registry]] when launching [[.xxx]]. A DPML would block users from registerting domain names related to trademarks registered with the [[Trademark Clearinghouse]]. CADNA
notes
that there are about 400 applications for generic terms that do not contain any such IP protection mechanisms, and consequently risk becoming spaces for IP infringement.<ref>[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cadna-supports-increased-rights-protection-mechanisms-for-icanns-new-gtld-program-2012-09-11 CADNA Supports Increased Rights Protection Mechanisms for ICANN's New gTLD Program, MarketWatch.com]</ref>
+
In September, 2012, CADNA sent a letter to [[ICANN]], its [[GAC]], and the U.S. [[NTIA|National Telecommunications and Information Administration]] to request that all new, open [[gTLD]] registries are required to implement a Perpetual Block Option or a [[DPML|Domain Protected Marks List]] (DPML). A perpetual block option would allow a given corporation to protect
its
IP and trademarks through a one-time registration, and was compared by CADNA to the model used by [[ICM Registry]] when launching [[.xxx]]. A DPML would block users from registerting domain names related to trademarks registered with the [[Trademark Clearinghouse]]. CADNA
noted
that there are about 400 applications for generic terms that do not contain any such IP protection mechanisms, and consequently risk becoming spaces for IP infringement.<ref>[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cadna-supports-increased-rights-protection-mechanisms-for-icanns-new-gtld-program-2012-09-11 CADNA Supports Increased Rights Protection Mechanisms for ICANN's New gTLD Program, MarketWatch.com]</ref>
===Request for Future New gTLD Applications===
===Request for Future New gTLD Applications===
−
CADNA has been critical of ICANN's New gTLD Program, claiming that its launch is premature and the policy development process that led to the creation of the Program lacked transparency.
However, the organization
has clarified that is not
totally against
the introduction of new gTLDs.<ref>[http://www.cadna.org/en/blog?page=2 CADNA Letter to the Editor]</ref> CADNA clarified this position when [[Josh Bourne]], President of CADNA, sent a letter to ICANN President and CEO [[Rod Beckstrom]] asking the Internet governing body to disclose the schedule for future rounds of new gTLD applications. According to Bourne, after hosting a conference entitled "What's at Stake: The Reality of ICANN's New gTLD Program for Brands," participants concluded that CADNA would submit a proposal to the [[ICANN Board]]. In its proposal, CADNA asked that the ICANN Board "request an Issues Report to formally initiate a policy development process to determine when the next round of new gTLD applications will occur, thereby affirming its commitment to opening a second round in a timely manner." Bourne emphasized that CADNA does not object the promotion of innovation and improved competition through the introduction of new gTLDs; however, he said that ICANN has structured this New gTLD Program in such a way that it does not meet that objective. Furthermore, Bourne said that if ICANN would reveal a second round of applications, it might help ease the anxiety felt by businesses and subdue their hostility regarding the upcoming launch of the New gTLD Program, because it will give them the opportunity to prepare more thoroughly and decide if they will benefit from participating in the Program. As is, with the dates of future rounds unknown, many companies feel a sense of market scarcity and feel obliged to rush to apply immediately, before being able to weigh the costs and benefits.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/cadna-asks-for-new-gtlds-second-round/ CADNA asks for new gTLDs second round]</ref><ref>[http://www.cadna.org/sites/default/files/cadna-proposal-to-icann-nov-18-2011.pdf Josh Bourne, CADNA President letter to Rod Beckstrom, ICANN President & CEO]</ref>
+
CADNA has been critical of ICANN's New gTLD Program, claiming that its launch is premature and the policy development process that led to the creation of the Program lacked transparency.
CADNA
has clarified that
, while it initially objected to the roll-out of the new gTLD program, it
is not
opposed to
the introduction of new gTLDs.<ref>[http://www.cadna.org/en/blog?page=2 CADNA Letter to the Editor]</ref> CADNA clarified this position when [[Josh Bourne]], President of CADNA, sent a letter to ICANN President and CEO [[Rod Beckstrom]] asking the Internet governing body to disclose the schedule for future rounds of new gTLD applications. According to Bourne, after hosting a conference entitled "What's at Stake: The Reality of ICANN's New gTLD Program for Brands," participants concluded that CADNA would submit a proposal to the [[ICANN Board]]. In its proposal, CADNA asked that the ICANN Board "request an Issues Report to formally initiate a policy development process to determine when the next round of new gTLD applications will occur, thereby affirming its commitment to opening a second round in a timely manner." Bourne emphasized that CADNA does not object the promotion of innovation and improved competition through the introduction of new gTLDs; however, he said that ICANN has structured this New gTLD Program in such a way that it does not meet that objective. Furthermore, Bourne said that if ICANN would reveal a second round of applications, it might help ease the anxiety felt by businesses and subdue their hostility regarding the upcoming launch of the New gTLD Program, because it will give them the opportunity to prepare more thoroughly and decide if they will benefit from participating in the Program. As is, with the dates of future rounds unknown, many companies feel a sense of market scarcity and feel obliged to rush to apply immediately, before being able to weigh the costs and benefits.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/cadna-asks-for-new-gtlds-second-round/ CADNA asks for new gTLDs second round]</ref><ref>[http://www.cadna.org/sites/default/files/cadna-proposal-to-icann-nov-18-2011.pdf Josh Bourne, CADNA President letter to Rod Beckstrom, ICANN President & CEO]</ref>
==CADNA Founders Promote New gTLD Consulting Services==
==CADNA Founders Promote New gTLD Consulting Services==