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

[stephvg@xxxxxxxxx]

The argument that the GAC has helped the BC reach objectives in the past has 
been clearly made and is understood.

I do not think anyone takes it lightly or underestimates the importance of 
having GAC support to this group.

However, I do not see why this should prevent the BC from having an internal 
discussion on a topic that members seem to feel warrants discussion.

Right now I have no idea where we stand as a group, and feel J Scott's proposal 
has merit because I'm not even sure I fully understand the issue and I would 
hope that through the discussion, I could gain a better understanding from 
others seem to have much more expertise on this.

I read J Scott's request to be one for an internal discussion in order to try 
and ascertain a BC position. I think that would be useful. I do not have any 
preconceived ideas on the outcome at this stage, as the discussion has not even 
taken place. Surely once we know where we stand on an issue, then we can decide 
what to do with it. But not before.

You say you'd like to be sure that we are taking a broadly inclusive input to 
any discussion. I couldn't agree more, but it's hard to do without first having 
that discussion.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 1 août 2013 à 20:41, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> I sent a response that raised questions about the challenges in this 
> position, as several members did also raise concerns about how the BC has 
> benefitted from GAC support on Strawman and SSR.
> I think this is going to be a contentious discussion within the BC, and I'd 
> like to be sure that we are taking a broadly inclusive input to any 
> discussion, including considering the importance of how the GAC has helped 
> the BC's interests on gaining improvements on Strawman improvements. I know 
> that Stephane, you didn't support the improvements that the BC fought for, 
> along with the IPC, but those were broadly supported by the BC, and we 
> frankly would not have gained the improvements, without the GAC listening, 
> and accepting our concerns, and weighing in.
> 
> On SSR, again, there is a shared concern about stability as the new gTLDs are 
> introduced.
> 
> It is important to the BC as users to also take into account our longer term 
> views and concerns.
> Finally, I will say that working with the GAC within ICANN is much preferred 
> to having to work with governments outside of ICANN at WIPO, ITU, and UN 
> General Assembly, where the SME nature of the GAC is not always present in 
> those discussions.
> 
> I do want to be part of the discussions, but I also want to note that all 
> discussions on the role of GAC need to be broad and inclusive and not focused 
> on individual gTLD decisions.
> 
> In fact, the BC membership charter is not about gTLD applications and 
> concerns of applicants or contracted parties. That is extremely important to 
> remember and to maintain the integrity of that uniqueness of our role.
> 
> Marilyn Cade
> 
> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:32:16 -0700
> From: jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban
> To: stephvg@xxxxxxxxx; sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: psc@xxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> Thanks Stephane. I think you're perspective would be refreshing.
> 
> Steve, what do we need to do to get this started?
> 
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
> 
> From: stephvg@xxxxxxxxx <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>; 
> To: Deutsch, Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
> Cc: 'jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx' <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>; 'psc@xxxxxxxxxxx' 
> <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 'bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx' <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; 
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban 
> Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 6:16:18 PM 
> 
> +1. Happy to help if I can.
> 
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
> STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
> 
> T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
> T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
> Skype: SVANGELDER
> www.StephaneVanGelder.com
> ----------------
> Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: 
> www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
> LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
> 
> Le 1 août 2013 à 19:46, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx> a 
> écrit :
> 
> I'd be happy to work on this as well and see if we can find a consensus 
> position. 
> 
> 
> Sarah B. Deutsch 
> Vice President & Deputy General Counsel 
> Verizon Communications 
> Phone: 703-351-3044 
> Fax: 703-351-3670 
> sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx
>  
> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 12:10 PM
> To: psc@xxxxxxxxxxx <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban 
>  
> 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