Re: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban

["J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marilyn:

My suggestion is to see if we can come up with a consensus position, taking in 
all points of view.  I am confused as to why you would not want to have this 
discussion.  Business owners pour millions of dollars into the IPR and brands 
are hugely important to business owners and users alike.  Allowing the GAC to 
effectively take away a business's asset outside the purview of the political 
process is dangerous and bad for businesses and consumers.

On your second, point.  I note that the GAC has been an ally.  So have the 
ISPCP and we have respectfully disagreed with them over the years yet continued 
to maintain a strong working relationship.  Finally, I have talked with many 
GAC members who are desperate for business to speak up on this issue.  

For all these reasons, I must respectfully disagree with your position and ask 
that my request be granted.

J. Scott
 
j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 
408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx




________________________________
 From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 9:44 AM
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban
 


 
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