[gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 29/4/17 6:32 am, Jonathan Agmon wrote:
> The USPTO is in the US. Perhaps the EPO's and many other Trademark
> Offices' positions is also relevant. My point, which I feel I am not
> getting through, is that the US positron is not the only one.  Nearly
> every country on the planet has some laws relating to GI protection
> and I am arguing most of them view them as a form of trademarks.  I
> don't see the reason why not to include a registered GI in the TMCH.
> They are after all trademarks, when registered. Can you help me out
> here to understand your objection and the reasons for it? If others
> (non US countries) see GIs as trademarks and allow them to be
> registered, why exclude them?

Forgive my ignorance, has this discussion happened elsewhere?  The
proposition that GIs should be recognized alongside trademarks in the
DNS is surely a far bigger one than the RPMs working group.  Not the
kind of thing that we could just slip in as an assumption.  I for one
would certainly have a lot more to say about the merits of recognizing
GIs in the DNS, if that were our discussion.  But I doubt it's a
discussion for this working group.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170429/47e030d2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170429/47e030d2/signature.asc>