<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
- To: "Laura Covington " <lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike Rodenbaugh " <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Sarah Deutsch " <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
- From: "Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:59:18 +0000
I would like the BC to do our best to reach a position. I will have to read the
transcript for details. My own position is that where the BC, as the user
constituency, can shed light it is our responsibility as part of the process at
ICANN to strive to do so.
Sometimes we can't. Let's try in this case. I will promise to read on flight
back from Geneva IGF consultation,
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: Laura Covington <lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:05:21
To: <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Hey, Mike,
I'm totally open to considering other definitions/terminology for "closed
generics" if you have ideas to propose.
As to the separate issue of responding to the GAC's advice, participants on the
call the other day seemed interested in including - or at least considering -
language on closed generics rather than being silent. It seems clear - and
understandable - what your point of view is. Anybody else?
Laura
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
408.349.5187
From: "icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "
<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Organization: Rodenbaugh Law
Reply-To: "mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "
<mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM
To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >,
"svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "
<svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, "'Deutsch,
Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, 'Steve DelBianco'
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >,
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> " <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
It seems that every dictionary word is a 'pre-existing trademark' at least
insofar as it is registered as such somewhere (e.g. Benelux, in advance of the
EU land rush). My examples are all registered at the USPTO. Any of those
registrations could be purchased or even be previously registered by any
so-called 'closed generic' TLD applicant.
Why is it legitimate for Apple to operate .apple to the exclusion of everyone
else in the world that may have a legitimate use for a .apple domain name?
(Maybe better examples are other new TLD applicants Abbott, Active,
AFamilyCompany, Amazon, AmericanFamily. and the list goes on past Apple..)
Yet it would not be legitimate for Weather.com to operate .weather that way?
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Deutsch, Sarah B
Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your
question? Pre-existing trademark?
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
408.349.5187
From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM
To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >,
"svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "
<svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, "Deutsch,
Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, Steve DelBianco
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >,
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> " <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
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 <mailto:lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
To: "svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "
<svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >; "Deutsch,
Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >; Steve DelBianco
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >;
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> " <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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 <mailto:lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
408.349.5187
From: "svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "
<svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM
To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, Steve DelBianco
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >,
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> " <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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 <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/>
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us
on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
<http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
<http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>
Le 22 mai 2013 à 22:58, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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>
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf
Of Elisa Cooper
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM
To: Steve DelBianco
Cc: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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>
[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 <mailto: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>
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm>
)
The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and
transcripts on the BC Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> ).
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>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|