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

["BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF" <jb7454@xxxxxxx>]

I am not an IP lawyer, but are there middle-ground options for ICANN to 
implement some type of protection short of a complete block?  After all, 
concerns were raised that the CSG was seeking TM protections that went beyond 
the law too.

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:07 PM
To: 'J. Scott Evans'; sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Updated ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC 
Advice from Beijing

I am in complete agreement on this.

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

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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