RE: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC

[Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The draft letter is imperfect in that it suggests that governments might have 
some legitimate rights vis-a-vis geo names at the second level, when in fact 
map names have never been entitled to trademark protection. Regardless of one's 
views as to whether governments should have any right to object to a second 
level geo name, the notion that they should have an unquestioned and absolute 
veto power over any second level name incorporating a defined class of geo 
terms is absurd -- for goodness sake, what legitimate right of the French 
government is being violated if someone registers france.beaches or 
riviera.beaches? The BC should defend the legitimacy of a free marketplace, and 
consumers acting in that marketplace should decide whether such a domain is 
commercially viable based upon the information and services it provides. A 
governmental veto power totally deprives registrants of any due process 
protections, deprives consumers of a broad class of potentially useful direct 
search domain names, and will stifle innovation and constrict the utility of 
broad classes of potential new gTLDs. Affording such a veto power is also a 
formula for political favoritism if not outright corruption.

Too much has already been conceded to the GAC in the new gTLD draft Guidebook 
and it is time they be told, politely but forcefully, to back off. We therefore 
urge that the BC endorse the letter.



Philip S. Corwin
Partner
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004

202-347-6875 (office)

202-347-6876 (fax)

202-255-6172 (cell)

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz 
Williams [lizawilliams@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:26 AM
To: Philip Sheppard
Cc: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC

Philip

The critical element is that one set of objectors cannot have a power of veto 
that others do not.  An objector cannot also unfairly undermine legitimate 
which with they may just happen to disagreed.  Circumventing a specialised 
process is exactly what 2.5 years of policy development was supposed to prevent.

I support the Council's position.

Liz
...

Liz Williams
+44 1963 364 380
+44 7824 877 757



On 14 May 2009, at 13:20, Philip Sheppard wrote:

<GNSO Council to GAC May 2009 V4.doc>