This has come up before and Alan has, as usual, ably outlined the distinctive details for the TMCH as not fit to purpose. In any event, this is a contest we'd be advised taking a backseat here is in the At-Large ' s best strategic interest. Unless we have the opportunity to do some horse trading; one man's old nag is the other fella's sleek Arabian steed. Carlton On Jun 24, 2014 9:11 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Many Geographic names are already on the restricted list for 2nd/3rd level registration, but generally, these do not correspond to wine appellations.
Since the TMCH generally only is involved in registrations done at launch time and during the first 90 days of operation, I don't think that this would be satisfactory, since my impression is that they are looking for an ongoing-for-the-life-of-the-domain. Even if the TMCH were to impact registrations for the life of the TLDs (which has a whole set of problems associated with it), it is not clear to me if that would be acceptable to the objectors to .vin/wine, since it does not prevent registrations but just requires the applicant to avow that they are not doing anything that violates trademarks (or whatever the reason for being in the TMCH).
So, in my mind, it is an option, but probably not one that would satisfy the parts of the wine industry that are objecting to the delegation.
Alan
At 24/06/2014 03:25 AM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Hello all,
As you are aware, the discussion over .vin and .wine is something that has kept the GAC busy lately. As I understand it, the reason for this discussion is whether .vin and .wine should be delegated or not as they may pose a threat to countries that have an important wine industry.
On the session we had with SO/ACs Chairs I didn’t have time to ask this question but anyway I posted it to the AC room chat and wanted to raise it on this list.
The question is whether the GAC has considered or not, to ask the TMCH to include geographic indications to their set of intellectual property assets that can be protected through this mechanism rather than continue a discussion that can be endless.
I would think that adding GIs to the TMCH structure could solve this problem and let .vin and .wine be delegated properly.
What are your thoughts on this?
All the best,
León
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)