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

["Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

USTelecom and CTIA filed community objections against .phone and .mobile. This 
should be public information. I was not interested in engaging in specific 
arguments with you about the harms from these or other closed applications 
without first knowing who you actually represent. I strongly support Elisa's 
sensible suggestion that everyone in the BC declare their interests.


Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx

From: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 06:39 PM
To: 'Ron Andruff' <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on 
safeguards for new gTLDs

Ron, Sarah,

Anyone can see a non-exhaustive list of TLDs I am publicly assisting with, by 
searching my name here:  
https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus

Other commenters then should describe their interest in this topic – and more 
importantly any relevant actual information they have that might support their 
conclusory opinions about likely harm.  For example, it is known that Verizon 
is a prominent member of a trade association that has filed a community 
objection against a so-called closed generic TLD application.  So why does 
Sarah not disclose that, and more importantly, why does she not share any 
evidence or argument that was submitted with that objection?

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron 
Andruff
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:45 PM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on 
safeguards for new gTLDs

Mike,

As an observer to this string of debate, it appears to me (and possibly other 
members) that you are obfuscating.  You have been asked on several occasions to 
declare your interests, but you parry that question with more questions.  What 
is holding you back from being up front with the members and disclosing?  
Disclosure would, IMHO, lend more credibility to your arguments.
Disclosure should be our first obligation as members of the BC – considering 
the convoluted nature of our membership today.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.<http://www.rnapartners.com>
________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
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

Oh, and as to a counter-argument to your position, I refer you to the USPTO's 
disposition of the various .music trademark applications. While not identical, 
the USPTO's reasoning is very solar to the concerns I have heard from others.

J. Scott


Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone


________________________________
From: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>;
To: <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>>; 
<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; 
<lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; 
<svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; 
<sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>>;
Cc: <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; 
<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
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 8:20:35 PM

All of my clients, and my law firm, have business interests much  broader than 
the domain industry.

Who are these people expressing grave concerns?  Because I am only hearing 
competitors to so-called closed generic TLD applicants expressing concerns 
(including indirectly through their ICANN-connected government reps), with no 
evidence or any real specifics as to the parade of horribles they seem to 
envision.  And certainly no counter-argument to the points I am raising.  Do 
you or anyone else have any substantive response to any of those points?

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

From: jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
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

Mike:

We appreciate your pov. However, there are many of us in this constituency that 
have business interests broader than the domain industry. In my discussions 
with these non-ICANNers, they have voiced grave concerns and want assurances 
similar to those put forward by Sarah and Laura in the latest draft. Do others 
gave perspective here?


Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone


________________________________
From: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<javascript:return> 
<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<javascript:return>>;
To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<javascript:return>>; 
<svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<javascript:return>>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' 
<sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx<javascript:return>>;
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<javascript:return>>; 'Steve 
DelBianco' <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<javascript:return>>; 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<javascript:return>>;
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on 
safeguards for new gTLDs
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 7:21:46 PM

We went through exercise of trying to define categories like this, in 2006.  
Then in the Vertical Integration WG.  Then again recently in the IPC.  It can’t 
be done, as far as I know.

The GAC didn’t bother to provide a definition either.  Making any response 
problematic as we don’t really know what we are responding to.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<javascript:return>]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM
To: mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<javascript:return>; 
svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<javascript:return>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B'
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<javascript:return>
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<mailto: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] 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>