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

[icannlists]

Thanks Jeremy.  I think the problem came up because the TMCH operator has let a few in under an assumption, even though no one can find any guidance in the GNSO Policy, IRT Recommendations, STI Report, Board Resolutions or the AGB supporting the notion.  If this group doesn’t affirmatively say “stop that” then presumably the TMCH operator will keep doing it and more GIs will get in.  So, unless we are happy with the status quo where the TMCH operator is letting in things no one intended to be let in, I think we have to address the issue.

Even so, there are those on the list who want GIs to be welcome into the TMCH or that a separate GICH be built along with GISunrise and GIClaims.  While these things are not necessary off-charter, such activities could easily add a year or more to this PDP.  That is not my favorite outcome.

Best,
Paul


From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 8:22 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week

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<mailto: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


________________________________
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170430/de50f041/attachment.html>