Re: lp:trademark_name field

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 5:52 PM, InterNetX - Volker Janzen
<[email protected]> wrote:
> With the EPP contact object, you have an attribute "type" defined for
> the contact:postalInfo with the values int or loc to handle this issue
> (perhaps only one is supported, but then it's clear if I need to pass
> US-ASCII or Unicode).
>
> I know that there might be a policy for validating and rewriting
> trademark names (e.g. "?" may be omitted). But I think it would be nice
> to have something like this "type" attribute for the trademark name in
> the draft. If there is no attribute for this, I'd suggest to include a
> hint to care about Unicode characters in trademark names.
>

I can see that adding a "type" attribute could help make the intention more
explicit.  However, I'm not sure how will this help in practice. Say you have a
trademark with non-ASCII characters, so you send it as type="loc", and the
registry responds with an error because it only accepts ASCII.  Without this
@type attribute, since the field is an XML "normalizedString" it can contain
pretty much any Unicode characters, you'd just send it along and the
registrywould respond with an error.

I would prefer your latter suggestion to include wording about the
trademark_name field being agnostic to the character repertoire, and that
restrictions are left to the implementor.


On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Jens Wagner <[email protected]> wrote:
> A registry making use of the launchphase extension should publish the set of
> allowed charactes for trademark_name, and should define a function which
> validates if a trademark_name covers a domain name (e.g. a german umlaut Ö
> could cover Ö only, or Ö, O and OE).
>
> I would not a flag like "type='loc/int'" for this purpose, as it only says
> 'unicode' vs. 7-bit ASCII. Some registries might e.g. want to limit e.g. to
> cyrillic chars only.
>

I agree.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Jim Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2011, at 11:58, Gavin Brown wrote:
>
>> My understanding of this field is that it does not contain data that is
>> used to validate the applicant's eligibility.
>
> It might or might not provide validation. It depends on the trademark, where
> it's registered and who's doing the validation. In most cases I expect the
> filing number and other registration details would be enough. Though there
> may be examples where the string or logo -- assuming it can be rendered in
> Unicode -- will be helpful: Kanji or Arabic trademarks for instance.
>

Indeed, there are quite a few possible configurations of registry,
validation agent, and policies.

> I'm not sure if this field needs to be added. It would be better to ask the
> people who do trademark validations and find out what they have to say about
> this. I suppose they'd say it was better to have this extra info and not
> need it than the other way round.
>

The reason trademark_name and trademark_* fields were included was
that our validation agent at that time asked for them. It has almost
always appeared on past sunrises, most of them managed through a
single validation agent notwithstanding, even if it was probably used
as extra hint as you mentioned.


>
> IMO it would be wise not to use terms like "clearinghouse" or couple this
> EPP stuff too closely to ICANN's gTLD plans/processes.

Agree, and we've avoided using any such terms in the draft.

.wil
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg