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

BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF jb7454 at att.com
Mon Jul 15 20:14:18 UTC 2013

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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of icann at rodenbaugh.com
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:07 PM
To: 'J. Scott Evans'; sdelbianco at netchoice.org; bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Updated ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing

I am in complete agreement on this.

Mike Rodenbaugh
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:50 AM
To: sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>; bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org>
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 at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>;
To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org>>;
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)

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>.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130715/ae0ea079/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list