Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GAC Scorecard Comments due by 25 March
Dear Evan, this is an excellent start - but I note that so far, only NARALO has really spent much time working on this. May I ask all other RALOs to expressly look at this too? The deadlines imposed on us are incredibly short. Kind regards, Olivier Le 23/03/2011 04:07, Evan Leibovitch a écrit :
Hello all,
On 21 March 2011 20:58, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org <mailto:Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org>> wrote:
Evan has created a Draft Response to 2011 GAC gTLD Scorecard wiki page to develop the ALAC response to the GAC Scorecard (see: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Draft+Response+to+2011+GAC+gTLD+...).
Indeed, I have already started filling in a proposed response in the above-mentioned workspace (under "Thematic Response") and I welcome input. So far what I have written has been based on existing ALAC points of view (as stated in previous written comments), very welcome input on trademark issues from Alan Greenberg (who was part of the STI working group), as well as discussions I have had with many members of At-Large over the past months and years.
(Note: Alan submitted a separate proposal, but I have incorporated it into my own as well). I have also incorporated the comments of Gordon C., found at the bottom of that URL, as well as Danny's reference (in an earlier email) to an apropos quote from Larry Strickland given at the recent ICANN meeting. So right now all the input I have had to work with has come from within NARALO.
As you can see there is still much to be done and not much time. All input is welcome, so keep it up!
- Evan
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
My comments have been posted on the page. Again I haven't heard anything from APRALO list. But at least I for one have commented from AP at-large. Hong On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Dear Evan,
this is an excellent start - but I note that so far, only NARALO has really spent much time working on this. May I ask all other RALOs to expressly look at this too? The deadlines imposed on us are incredibly short. Kind regards,
Olivier
Le 23/03/2011 04:07, Evan Leibovitch a écrit :
Hello all,
On 21 March 2011 20:58, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org <mailto:Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org>> wrote:
Evan has created a Draft Response to 2011 GAC gTLD Scorecard wiki page to develop the ALAC response to the GAC Scorecard (see:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Draft+Response+to+2011+GAC+gTLD+... ).
Indeed, I have already started filling in a proposed response in the above-mentioned workspace (under "Thematic Response") and I welcome input. So far what I have written has been based on existing ALAC points of view (as stated in previous written comments), very welcome input on trademark issues from Alan Greenberg (who was part of the STI working group), as well as discussions I have had with many members of At-Large over the past months and years.
(Note: Alan submitted a separate proposal, but I have incorporated it into my own as well). I have also incorporated the comments of Gordon C., found at the bottom of that URL, as well as Danny's reference (in an earlier email) to an apropos quote from Larry Strickland given at the recent ICANN meeting. So right now all the input I have had to work with has come from within NARALO.
As you can see there is still much to be done and not much time. All input is welcome, so keep it up!
- Evan
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ <http://iipl.org.cn/> 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
On 23 March 2011 08:16, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
My comments have been posted on the page. Again I haven't heard anything from APRALO list. But at least I for one have commented from AP at-large.
Hi Hong, I have two responses to your comment: On the issue of "substantive evaluation", the GAC point was that not every country has that level of scrutiny on its own nation's trademarks, and that these countrry's trademarks should not be invalidated (for these purposes) due to lack of such evaluation. Can we suggest an alternate wording that addresses this? I have incorporated your views on the PDDRP and hope you find them sufficiently strong. Thank you for your timely and effective input! This is not a race between regions; I am simply trying to get as much community input as possible, as quickly as possible. - Evan
Dear Evan, Many thanks for the added part on PDPDR. It is terrific. For substantive evaluation, I do see your point but still cannot go with GAC. No rule-making can satisfy all the parties and interests. We can only stick to our priority and focus. If at-large has to pick a side between trademark registrants and new gTLD applicants, I'd rather choose the latter if free speech and free flow of information are implicated by the trademarks. Indeed trademark registrations varies significantly among territories. In some territory, a trademark registration can be completed in roughly 4 days and an applicant can literally register any character or device, even though some are extremely inappropriate for the registrants to obtain the exclusive rights. If GAC model is adopted, these non-evaluated registrations would be as valid as other "real" registrations, which may be convenient for trademark registrants to fight against new gTLD strings. But why should ICANN policy be so trademark-friendly? Absolutely no race among regions-:) Particularly I've not seen anyone joining me from my Region-:( Hong On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 23 March 2011 08:16, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
My comments have been posted on the page. Again I haven't heard anything from APRALO list. But at least I for one have commented from AP at-large.
Hi Hong,
I have two responses to your comment:
On the issue of "substantive evaluation", the GAC point was that not every country has that level of scrutiny on its own nation's trademarks, and that these countrry's trademarks should not be invalidated (for these purposes) due to lack of such evaluation. Can we suggest an alternate wording that addresses this?
I have incorporated your views on the PDDRP and hope you find them sufficiently strong.
Thank you for your timely and effective input! This is not a race between regions; I am simply trying to get as much community input as possible, as quickly as possible.
- Evan
-- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ <http://iipl.org.cn/> 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
Hi Hong, On 23 March 2011 22:14, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Evan,
Many thanks for the added part on PDPDR. It is terrific.
For substantive evaluation, I do see your point but still cannot go with GAC. No rule-making can satisfy all the parties and interests. We can only stick to our priority and focus. If at-large has to pick a side between trademark registrants and new gTLD applicants, I'd rather choose the latter if free speech and free flow of information are implicated by the trademarks.
OK. I've also noticed Olivier's endorsement of your position. I've removed the substantive evaluation component from the 'endorsed GAC position' list - Evan
participants (3)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
Hong Xue -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond