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

martinsutton at hsbc.com martinsutton at hsbc.com
Tue Jul 16 05:23:13 UTC 2013

I am also not an IP lawyer. I never considered that CSG demands were providing any extra rights to TM holders - just improved mechanisms to prevent/enforce against infringement and malicious behaviour. Concerns were raised but most were ill-informed. 

I think this all centres on balance within the multi-stakeholder model and constituencies should be concerned about unforeseen consequences, should the Board accept this specific advise. 

DotBrand applicants, amongst others, are concerned with the ongoing security and stability of the Internet, and they are intent on providing extremely controlled and safe environments for Internet users, as well as introducing innovation to the digital economy. I believe this aligns extremely well with BC values and so I support J Scott's approach.  


Martin Sutton
Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence
Ph:  ++44 (0)20 7991 8074
Mob:  ++44 (0)777 4556680
Sent from my BlackBerry


HSBC Holdings plc
Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom
Registered in England number 617987


----- Original Message -----
From: "BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF" [jb7454 at att.com]
Sent: 15/07/2013 20:14 GMT
To: "mike at rodenbaugh.com" <mike at rodenbaugh.com>; "'J. Scott Evans'" <jscottevans at yahoo.com>; "sdelbianco at netchoice.org" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso at icann.org" <bc-gnso at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Updated ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from  Beijing

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>.



This E-mail is confidential.                      
It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you
may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please delete it and all copies
from your system and notify the sender immediately by return
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure,
error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130716/8aca9b3f/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list