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

[martinsutton@xxxxxxxx]

I am also not an IP lawyer. I never considered that CSG demands were providing 
any extra rights to TM holders - just improved mechanisms to prevent/enforce 
against infringement and malicious behaviour. Concerns were raised but most 
were ill-informed. 

I think this all centres on balance within the multi-stakeholder model and 
constituencies should be concerned about unforeseen consequences, should the 
Board accept this specific advise. 

DotBrand applicants, amongst others, are concerned with the ongoing security 
and stability of the Internet, and they are intent on providing extremely 
controlled and safe environments for Internet users, as well as introducing 
innovation to the digital economy. I believe this aligns extremely well with BC 
values and so I support J Scott's approach.  

Martin

Martin Sutton
Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence
Ph:  ++44 (0)20 7991 8074
Mob:  ++44 (0)777 4556680
Sent from my BlackBerry

*********************************

HSBC Holdings plc
Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom
Registered in England number 617987

*********************************


----- Original Message -----
From: "BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF" [jb7454@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 15/07/2013 20:14 GMT
To: "mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'J. Scott Evans'" 
<jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>; "sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Updated ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC 
Advice from  Beijing



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




-----------------------------------------
SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!

This E-mail is confidential.                      
                                                  
It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you
may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please delete it and all copies
from your system and notify the sender immediately by return
E-mail.                     
                                                  
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure,
error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions.