[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Generic words belong to everyone in a business or industry

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi Anne,

Per the discussion in the WG and on the chat, I don't agree that this is 
the right assessment at all. The Board adopted policy in 2012, and ICANN 
Org, Board and Community did followed it and dozens of closed 
applications became open in Round 1. Far more important than the order 
of processing of applications (an implementation issue), this is a 
fundamental policy issue. The Board acted, with enormous public input 
during a formal comment period, and then created the bar. The default by 
the Newman rule and everything else we follow is to keep this policy, 
and practice of 2012, absent some overwhelming reason to change it. In 
all these months, no overwhelming need or agreement has materialized.

Best, Kathy

On 2/18/2020 12:16 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
>
> HI Kathy,
>
> I do think it’s important for the WG to understand what Jeff’s 
> position is procedurally on this topic.  It appears to me that Paul is 
> correct that there was no policy against Closed Generics in 2012 and 
> that the Board resolution is limited to the 2012 round.  So if we 
> stick with the “ground rules” of the PDP, it appears that the next 
> round will be “open season” for Closed Generic applications.  This is 
> especially important to consider now that the Working Group has taken 
> a “rough consensus” position (with some of us dissenting)  that going 
> forward, if a string is applied for in the next round, that 
> application will act as a complete bar to applications for the same 
> string in any subsequent round.
>
> I would strongly advocate for skipping this topic in the next call and 
> scheduling it for the F2F meeting.
>
>
> Anne
>
> *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf 
> Of *Kathy Kleiman
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 18, 2020 8:36 AM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Generic words belong to everyone in a 
> business or industry
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As we revisit the topic of Closed Generics, I would like to share a 
> few thoughts as a reminder on how this issue (of "generic words") has 
> been dealt with in other forums. This is a long-established issue...
>
> 1) Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, US Trademark Office:
>
> "Generic terms are incapable of functioning as marks denoting source, 
> and are not registrable on the Principal Register under §2(f) or on 
> the Supplemental Register." 807.14(e)(ii)
>
> 2) Our own Community Objection process reviewed and raised the same 
> deep concerns for gTLDs in which the applicant (a competitor in a field)
>
> ICC New gTLD Community Objections determination:  "The establishment 
> of unrestricted, exclusive rights to a gTLD that is strongly 
> associated with a certain community or communities, particularly where 
> those communities are, or are likely to be, active in the Internet 
> sphere *seems to me inherently detrimental to those communities' 
> interests." [Note: the "communities" being referred to here are 
> commercial communities.  The issue of a closed .MOBILE was raised by 
> the CTIA which represents the US mobile wireless industry. *1-1316-6133
>
> Best, Kathy
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the 
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of 
> this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the 
> employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment 
> to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any 
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any 
> attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
> communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to 
> the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any 
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and 
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the 
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200218/d1d11e4d/attachment.html>