Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs

[Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Laura,

Then what about all the trademarks that exist for 'generic words'.  Not just 
Apple, but also Sex, Drugs and even Rock 'n Roll (all registered at the USPTO)?

Beyond that, what about the broader notion that closed generic business models 
are more in the public interest than open copycat business models?  The BC is 
on record with the position that restricted registries are preferred over open 
registries, because abuse and consumer harm are far less likely.

Best,
Mike



>________________________________
> From: Laura Covington <lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Deutsch, Sarah 
>B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
>Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Steve DelBianco 
><sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
>Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:23 AM
>Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on 
>safeguards for new gTLDs
> 
>
>
>I don’t know of any official definition of a closed generic TLD, but perhaps a 
>starting place would be to say that it is a TLD that:
>
>
>       * Consists of a generic term/phrase which 
>       * Is not intended to represent a pre-existing trademark, and
>       * The registry operator does not intend to sell/grant/give second level 
> domains to the (general?) public 
> 
>Laura Covington
>VP, Intellectual Property Policy
>Yahoo! Inc.
>lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>408.349.5187
>
>From: "svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM
>To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steve DelBianco 
><sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on 
>safeguards for new gTLDs
>
>
>
> 
>Thanks Sarah, J. Scott and Laura for this work. 
>
>
>I am wondering if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a closed 
>generic TLD somewhere?
>
>
>Failing that, what is to stop the criteria suggested in this text being 
>imposed on, say, a brand that has a term resembling a generic term as its 
>brand name and that would understandably like to operate it for its own 
>exclusive use?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Stéphane Van Gelder
>Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
>STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
>
>T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
>T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
>Skype: SVANGELDER
>www.StephaneVanGelder.com
>----------------
>Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us 
>on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
> 
>LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
>
>Le 22 mai 2013 à 22:58, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx> a 
>écrit :
>
>All,
>>
>>To follow up on our BC call this morning,  we discussed why the existing 
>>draft asking ICANN to develop a non-specific public policy exemption in the 
>>Registry Code of Conduct for closed generics was not a good idea.  Steve had 
>>encouraged me, J. Scott Evans and
 Laura Covington from Yahoo to put pen to paper and propose specific ideas 
(building on the Australia’s earlier GAC recommendations on closed generics) 
rather than for the BC to remain silent on this issue. 
>> 
>>Our proposed language is attached for Members’ consideration.
>> 
>>
>>Sarah
>> 
>> 
>>
>>Sarah B. Deutsch 
>>Vice President & Deputy General Counsel 
>>Verizon Communications 
>>Phone: 703-351-3044 
>>Fax: 703-351-3670
>> 
>> 
>>From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
>>Of Elisa Cooper
>>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM
>>To: Steve DelBianco
>>Cc: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on 
>>safeguards for new gTLDs
>> 
>>Steve,
>> 
>>Thank you so much for all of your work on this.
>> 
>>Please find attached my edits to Sarah’s draft.
>> 
>>As previously stated, I will recuse myself from comments related to Closed 
>>Generics. That said, I am concerned that the proposed comments in this draft 
>>may be at odds with our earlier 
>>position:http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20Closed%20Generic%20TLDs.pdf.
>> 
>>Thank you again.
>> 
>>Best,
>>Elisa
>> 
>>Elisa Cooper
>>Director of Product Marketing
>>MarkMonitor
>> 
>>Elisa Cooper
>>Chair
>>ICANN Business Constituency
>> 
>>208 389-5779 PH
>> 
>>From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
>>Of Deutsch, Sarah B
>>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:29 PM
>>To: Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on 
>>safeguards for new gTLDs
>> 
>>Steve, All,
>>
>>Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached.   One big issue 
>>I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed generics.   
>>Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed generics and 
>>formal objections have been filed. 
 The focus on applying for an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix 
these fundamental concerns for the reasons outlined in the attached.
>> 
>>I’d suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the 
>>closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GAC’s concerns about 
>>closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in a 
>>generic term is in the larger public interest.   
>> 
>>Sarah
>> 
>>From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
>>Of Steve DelBianco
>>Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM
>>To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards 
>>for new gTLDs
>> 
>>ICANN’s new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it 
>>should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new 
>>gTLDs. (link)
>> 
>>The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and 
>>transcripts on the BC Wiki).  Several BC members provided input, including 
>>text from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack.  
>> 
>>Comment period closes 4-Jun.   That allows our regular 14-day review and 
>>approval period.  So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments 
>>regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013.
>> 
>>Steve DelBianco
>>Vice chair for policy coordination
>>Business Constituency
>> 
>> 
>> <BC Comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs DRAFT v1sd2 (2).docx>
> 
>
>