RE: [bc-gnso] Updated ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing

[<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am in complete agreement on this.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of J. 
Scott Evans
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:50 AM
To: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Updated ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC 
Advice from Beijing

 


Here is a bit more about my reasoning:

Geographic regions do not have global protection. Some jurisdictions provide 
geographic indication protections – but that is done legislatively, be it 
nationally or through treaties - not de facto. And it is a highly contentious 
process. 

What the GAC is asking is that ICANN propel geographic terms – and not just 
country names are recognized, but any term a particular jurisdiction decides is 
regionally sensitive – to a level of legislatively or treaty-based recognition. 
National and international law does not provide for this. While it is not 
technically “law,” it is having that impact through ICANN processes. 

I think it is important for the BC to keep GAC rights to advice out of this 
equation. We are talking about ICANN Board adopting advice that gives 
extra-national rights.

Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad

 

  _____  

From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >; 
To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> >; 
Subject: [bc-gnso] Updated ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice 
from Beijing 
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2013 10:31:30 AM 

 


BC Members:  I updated our matrix of GAC's Beijing Advice to reflect 2-July 
resolutions of the Board New GTLD Program Committee (NGPC)

 

Headlines:

Category 1 strings are on hold, pending dialogue with GAC in Durban.

 

International government organizations (IGO) get temporary 2nd level protection 
— to be resolved later this year.  

But if NGPC and GAC do not reach agreement on implementation issues by the 
first meeting after Durban, registry operators are required to protect only the 
IGO names identified on the GAC's "IGO List dated 22/03/2013" Annex 1 

 

For reference:

The GAC Beijing Advice is here 
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf%20> .

BC Comments on GAC Safeguards is here 
<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20GAC%20Advice%20for%20new%20gTLDs%20FINAL%5b4%5d.pdf%20>
 . 

Board New gTLD Program Committee's 4-Jun resolution is here 
<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-04jun13-en.htm>
 .

Board New gTLD Program Committee's 25-Jun resolution is here 
<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm>
 .

Board New gTLD Program Committee's 2-Jul resolution is here 
<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13-en.htm>
 .

 

-- 

Steve