Using the 12 points the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) outlined in its Cartagena communiqué as headings, the GAC revealed a less tough starting point for negotiations than a leaked document from the US government detailed.
The GAC scorecard also showed a relatively conciliatory tone, by writing: "From the GAC's perspective, the Brussels consultations are not only an appropriate but a critical step in ensuring the perspectives of governments are fully taken into account in the Icann private-led, multi-stakeholder model".
Here are some key points:
Rights protection mechanisms
The GAC dealt with the trade mark clearinghouse and the unified rapid suspension procedure separately.
As it has made clear, the GAC takes issue with Icann's insistence that a trade mark must be substantively reviewed to gain automatic entry to the trade mark clearinghouse. This rules out marks from all jurisdictions bar the US, Canada and Philippines.
The GAC would like to see all marks permitted that are recognised under national law of the country where the registry operator of the gTLD operates. In its analysis paper of the comment period of the latest Applicant Guidebook, Icann said that it was unwilling to move on substantive review requirement.
Extending the trade mark clearinghouse to include trade marks plus keywords associated with goods or services associated with the mark is another request. Icann has indicated that it is considering this.
Keeping the clearinghouse open after the launch is another recommendation, along with making it mandatory that registries run both an IP claims service, which means a registrant trying to register a domain that matches a mark in the clearinghouse will be notified of this, and a sunrise service period, which allows mark owners first claim on domains that match their mark, as each serves a different function.
For the unified rapid suspension (URS) procedure, which is intended for slam-dunk cases of cyber squatting, the GAC would like to see it streamlined. Advice includes increasing the speed of the process, reducing the word limit for filings - which Icann said it will do, and introducing a lower threshold of proof as well as a loser-pays model.
The GAC would also like the successful complainant to have the option of taking ownership of the domain. At the moment if a URS complainant is successful, the domain could potentially be registered again as it is released back into the market.
On the post-delegation dispute resolution mechanism, which is for trade mark owners to proceed against registry operators acting in bad faith, with intent to profit from systemic registration of infringing domain names or who otherwise use the gTLD for an improper purpose, the GAC would like a lower standard of proof than in the Applicant Guidebook.
Government veto
The GAC wants to be able to object to any gTLD application it deems inappropriate, but unlike in the US proposal the Icann Board could reject the advice from the GAC. The Board would have to give a rationale for rejecting the advice.
Limited rounds
The GAC would like to see a first round of applications or batches limited to between 200 or 300. The GAC would then like the Board to commit to an examination of the impact of the first batch of applications on the root zone before starting with the second batch.
