<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban
- To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban
- From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:44:57 -0400
I appreciate that this is a sensitive topic, but I do not agree that the BC can
take this up in an adversortial way.
I don't have a client who has a position on this, but I do have strong concerns
that the BC has to stay above the IP focus on this issue, as the IPC will lead
on that, no doubt.
And, the role of the GAC is much broader than just a position on geo names. For
instance, the GAC was the BC's strong friend and ally on the strawman, and on
the SSR issues, which are important to all of us as business users, whether
large or small.
This is going to be a contentious issue within the BC, as there are some
members who have applications as new gTLDs, therefore, I am not supporting
having a position, and if there is one, I think it has to be taken up broadly
about the role of the GAC, and not specific to a particular topic like this one.
There was strong division at the time of discussing the geo names during
Durban, with members taking up a range of positions. I think that we have to be
very respective that there are a range of views, and acknowledge that as
indivudual companies, of course, anyone is free to advocate but only as their
individual company , not identifying themselves with the BC.
Even if we take a vote on this, it will be highly divisive and that isn't
really helpful to the broader discussion about how the governments work within
ICANN, and how to work with the governments here, versus at the ITU, or
elsewhere.
For anyone who hasn't seen the Brazilian proposal to take up [again] the
discussion of Internet public policy -- read gTLD policy] at the ITU, I am
happy to do a brief on that.
I would prefer that the BC focus on those areas of strong agreement, and accept
that members are, in their individual capacity, free to take other positions,
Marilyn Cade
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:10:25 -0700
From: jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban
To: psc@xxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
I am telling you all this is a dangerous precedent. I hereby request that the
BC take up this issue and develop a formal opinion in this specific issue and
the broader issue of the GAC's role.
I am happy to lead this effort.
J. Scott
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
From:
Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
To:
bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>;
Subject:
[bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at
Durban
Sent:
Thu, Aug 1, 2013 3:58:37 PM
http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/08/01/governments-disagree-on-geographical-indication-protection-at-tld-level/?utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|