Bc-gnso
Threads by month
- ----- 2026 -----
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2025 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2024 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2012 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2011 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2010 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2009 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- 2493 discussions
RE: RE: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by icann＠rodenbaugh.com May 24, 2013
by icann＠rodenbaugh.com May 24, 2013
May 24, 2013
Thanks MJ. I will lay off the list today, except to say I am not clear that
I represent applicants for closed generics. In absence of a clear
definition, I could not be clear about them, and the BC cannot be clear in
commenting on them (whatever they are).
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
<http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of
Mari Jo Keukelaar
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 8:07 AM
To: stephvg(a)gmail.com
Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: [Bulk] RE: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
I, too, found yesterdays dialogue discomforting. Although I do not have
anything to do with closed generics, it does seem that the process itself
did not foreclose on applying for them. I also see that closed generics do
raise issues that closed TM TLDs do not. Yesterdays discussion did nothing
to clarify the issues that Mr. Evans, et al were attempting to address in
their comments, but did ask an attorney to make full disclosures about
clients that, as attorneys themselves, they recognize may be impossible to
make. I think Mike was clear that he represents parties applying for closed
generics and that he disagreed with the comments being put forth by this
group and that he preferred those made by Steves original proposition.
I generally do not comment when I do not hold strong positions that have
nothing to do with the business I represent. Whenever I have commented,
however, the BC has always been highly respectful of my minority opinion.
So rest assured, Stephane, that this was a rare event.
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of stephvg(a)gmail.com
<mailto:stephvg@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:33 AM
To: Ron Andruff
Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
All,
Due to the difference in timezones, I missed this discussion as it was
happening "live" and had the pleasure of catching up at my leisure whilst
sipping my morning coffee :)
I have to admit to being very uncomfortable with the path this discussion
seems to be taking. I have the words witch hunt forming in my mind.
My approach is this: I have an implicit trust that anyone
who is keen and
engaged enough to take the time to read the emails on this list, take part
in the discussions, be active in the BC calls or volunteer for BC work
is
operating for the greater good of the BC.
I find any suggestion otherwise worrying. And actually quite discouraging.
Does this mean that next time I make a comment that someone doesn't like,
then I will also be put on the spot and asked to justify myself from a
business point of view? So is it better for me to shut up rather than risk
taking abuse?
Those who know me already know that I find it very hard to shut up, so that
is hardly likely to happen :), but I do want to go on record here as saying
that unless someone proves to me that any member of the BC is acting with
ill intent, my base approach is to trust that people have exactly the same
take on BC work as me: working for the good of the BC and the defense of the
ICANN model which is the governance model that provides me, as a small
business owner, with a voice in the Internet's ,naming and address
governance discussion.
Best,
Stéphane
Oh, and BTW, I don't work for any closed generics ;)
Le 23 mai 2013 à 23:44, Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com
<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> > a écrit :
Mike,
As an observer to this string of debate, it appears to me (and possibly
other members) that you are obfuscating. You have been asked on several
occasions to declare your interests, but you parry that question with more
questions. What is holding you back from being up front with the members
and disclosing? Disclosure would, IMHO, lend more credibility to your
arguments.
Disclosure should be our first obligation as members of the BC considering
the convoluted nature of our membership today.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com/>
_____
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of
jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM
To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> ;
icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> ; lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com
<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> ; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com
<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com
<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>
Cc: Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> ;
sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ;
bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Oh, and as to a counter-argument to your position, I refer you to the
USPTO's disposition of the various .music trademark applications. While not
identical, the USPTO's reasoning is very solar to the concerns I have heard
from others.
J. Scott
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
_____
From: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>
<icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >;
To: <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> >;
<icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >; <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com
<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com
<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com
<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> >;
Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >;
<sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >;
<bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> >;
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 8:20:35 PM
All of my clients, and my law firm, have business interests much broader
than the domain industry.
Who are these people expressing grave concerns? Because I am only hearing
competitors to so-called closed generic TLD applicants expressing concerns
(including indirectly through their ICANN-connected government reps), with
no evidence or any real specifics as to the parade of horribles they seem to
envision. And certainly no counter-argument to the points I am raising. Do
you or anyone else have any substantive response to any of those points?
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
<http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com
From: jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>
[mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com <http://yahoo.com> ]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM
To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> ; lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com
<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> ; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com
<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com
<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>
Cc: Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> ;
sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ;
bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Mike:
We appreciate your pov. However, there are many of us in this constituency
that have business interests broader than the domain industry. In my
discussions with these non-ICANNers, they have voiced grave concerns and
want assurances similar to those put forward by Sarah and Laura in the
latest draft. Do others gave perspective here?
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
_____
From: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com
<javascript:return> >;
To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <javascript:return> >;
<svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <javascript:return> >; 'Deutsch, Sarah B'
<sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <javascript:return> >;
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <javascript:return> >;
'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <javascript:return> >;
<bc-gnso(a)icann.org <javascript:return> >;
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 7:21:46 PM
We went through exercise of trying to define categories like this, in 2006.
Then in the Vertical Integration WG. Then again recently in the IPC. It
cant be done, as far as I know.
The GAC didnt bother to provide a definition either. Making any response
problematic as we dont really know what we are responding to.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
<http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com
From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com <javascript:return> ]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM
To: mike(a)rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> ; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com
<javascript:return> ; 'Deutsch, Sarah B'
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <javascript:return>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Hey, Mike,
I'm totally open to considering other definitions/terminology for "closed
generics" if you have ideas to propose.
As to the separate issue of responding to the GAC's advice, participants on
the call the other day seemed interested in including or at least
considering - language on closed generics rather than being silent. It
seems clear and understandable - what your point of view is. Anybody
else?
Laura
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>
408.349.5187
From: "icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> "
<icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >
Organization: Rodenbaugh Law
Reply-To: "mike(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> "
<mike(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> >
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM
To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >,
"svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> "
<svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >, "'Deutsch,
Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>
>
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com
<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, 'Steve DelBianco'
<sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >,
"bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org
<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> >
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
It seems that every dictionary word is a pre-existing trademark at least
insofar as it is registered as such somewhere (e.g. Benelux, in advance of
the EU land rush). My examples are all registered at the USPTO. Any of
those registrations could be purchased or even be previously registered by
any so-called closed generic TLD applicant.
Why is it legitimate for Apple to operate .apple to the exclusion of
everyone else in the world that may have a legitimate use for a .apple
domain name? (Maybe better examples are other new TLD applicants Abbott,
Active, AFamilyCompany, Amazon, AmericanFamily
and the list goes on past
Apple
.) Yet it would not be legitimate for Weather.com
<http://Weather.com> to operate .weather that way?
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
<http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com
From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com
<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; Deutsch, Sarah B
Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your
question? Pre-existing trademark?
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>
408.349.5187
From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >
Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com
<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM
To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >,
"svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> "
<svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >, "Deutsch,
Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> >
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com
<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, Steve DelBianco
<sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >,
"bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org
<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Hi Laura,
Then what about all the trademarks that exist for 'generic words'. Not just
Apple, but also Sex, Drugs and even Rock 'n Roll (all registered at the
USPTO)?
Beyond that, what about the broader notion that closed generic business
models are more in the public interest than open copycat business models?
The BC is on record with the position that restricted registries are
preferred over open registries, because abuse and consumer harm are far less
likely.
Best,
Mike
_____
From: Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >
To: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> "
<svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >; "Deutsch,
Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> >
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com
<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >; Steve DelBianco
<sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >;
"bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org
<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> >
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
I dont know of any official definition of a closed generic TLD, but perhaps
a starting place would be to say that it is a TLD that:
* Consists of a generic term/phrase which
* Is not intended to represent a pre-existing trademark, and
* The registry operator does not intend to sell/grant/give second
level domains to the (general?) public
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>
408.349.5187
From: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> "
<svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM
To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com
<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> >
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com
<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, Steve DelBianco
<sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >,
"bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org
<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Thanks Sarah, J. Scott and Laura for this work.
I am wondering if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a closed
generic TLD somewhere?
Failing that, what is to stop the criteria suggested in this text being
imposed on, say, a brand that has a term resembling a generic term as its
brand name and that would understandably like to operate it for its own
exclusive use?
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
Skype: SVANGELDER
<http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> www.StephaneVanGelder.com
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook:
<http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant> www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
LinkedIn: <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>
fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
Le 22 mai 2013 à 22:58, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com
<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > a écrit :
All,
To follow up on our BC call this morning, we discussed why the existing
draft asking ICANN to develop a non-specific public policy exemption in the
Registry Code of Conduct for closed generics was not a good idea. Steve had
encouraged me, J. Scott Evans and Laura Covington from Yahoo to put pen to
paper and propose specific ideas (building on the Australias earlier GAC
recommendations on closed generics) rather than for the BC to remain silent
on this issue.
Our proposed language is attached for Members consideration.
Sarah
Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of
Elisa Cooper
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM
To: Steve DelBianco
Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Steve,
Thank you so much for all of your work on this.
Please find attached my edits to Sarahs draft.
As previously stated, I will recuse myself from comments related to Closed
Generics. That said, I am concerned that the proposed comments in this draft
may be at odds with our earlier position:
<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20Closed%20G
eneric%20TLDs.pdf>
http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20Closed%20Ge
neric%20TLDs.pdf.
Thank you again.
Best,
Elisa
Elisa Cooper
Director of Product Marketing
MarkMonitor
Elisa Cooper
Chair
ICANN Business Constituency
208 389-5779 PH
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:29 PM
To: Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Steve, All,
Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big
issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed
generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed
generics and formal objections have been filed. The focus on applying for
an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns
for the reasons outlined in the attached.
Id suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the
closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GACs concerns about
closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in
a generic term is in the larger public interest.
Sarah
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM
To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>
Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards
for new gTLDs
ICANNs new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it
should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new
gTLDs. (
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en
.htm> link)
The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and
transcripts on the BC <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home>
Wiki). Several BC members provided input, including text from Ron Andruff,
Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack.
Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and
approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and
comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013.
Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
Business Constituency
<BC Comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs DRAFT v1sd2 (2).docx>
1
0
Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by Ron Andruff May 24, 2013
by Ron Andruff May 24, 2013
May 24, 2013
Andy and all,
In terms of the relevance to the discussion on this string, this may be less relevant, but nonetheless important. One needs to make the distinction that no one 'owns' or will own a top level domain. ICANN grants a 'license' to manage a domain space to a manager (which can be replaced). Registrants have virtually no rights to a domain name if they do not pay the annual 'subscription'. Registries effectively lease a domain name, with few rights or protections. The last thing they do is 'own' their domain name. Registrars have put a lock on that space.
I bring this point forward because many applicants are incorrectly defining the circumstances and the facts may benefit those new to ICANN and the BC.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff
www.lifedotsport.com
-------- Original message --------
From: Andy Abrams <abrams(a)google.com>
Date: 05/23/2013 18:59 (GMT-05:00)
To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>
Cc: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com>,jscottevans@yahoo.com,icann@rodenbaugh.com,Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>,svg@stephanevangelder.com,sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com,Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>,Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>,bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Phil - good point. We will not operate as closed any strings that appear
on the GAC Communique list of exclusive registrations. If we get them, we
still plan to operate as closed or offering pointing strings such as .tube,
.play, .plus, .nexus and .chrome. This goes precisely to Mike's earlier
point about what constitutes a "closed generic." I agree that brands
should be exempted from this discussion, but who decides what is a
"legitimate" brand? We've personally seen a lot of overreaching from
applicants claiming to own trademark rights (and thus the sole right to own
the string) in generic terms such as music, mail and home.
Andy
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> Andy:****
>
> ** **
>
> Point of information – when you state “ For disclosure purposes, we no
> longer have strings that are the subject of GAC advice on exclusive
> generics” are you saying that Google (via Charleston Road) no longer
> proposes to be the exclusive registrant in any of the strings it has
> applied for, or just that it no longer has such plans for strings that
> appear on the non-exhaustive list of exclusive registration strings
> included within the GAC Beijing Communique?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks in advance.****
>
> ** **
>
> (Full disclosure: I formerly did some work on behalf of a client that is
> in contention with Charleston Road on one string, but that relationship no
> longer exists.)****
>
> ** **
>
> Best, Philip****
>
> ** **
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*****
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*****
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*****
>
> *Suite 1050*****
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*****
>
> *202-559-8597/Direct*****
>
> *202-559-8750/Fax*****
>
> *202-255-6172/cell***
>
> * *
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*****
>
> ****
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Andy Abrams
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:35 PM
> *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh
> *Cc:* jscottevans(a)yahoo.com; icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; Laura Covington;
> svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com; Elisa Cooper;
> Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list
>
> *Subject:* Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice
> on safeguards for new gTLDs****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear All,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks to all who have worked on these comments. For disclosure purposes,
> we no longer have strings that are the subject of GAC advice on exclusive
> generics, but we still believe in the principle that such registries are
> not inherently problematic and can improve the gTLD program by allowing
> for innovative business models. ****
>
> ** **
>
> My vote would be to go back to Steve's original language, which strikes a
> balance between the BC's existing non-position on this issue and respecting
> the GAC's advice by asking the Board to consider the meaning of "public
> interest." However, if enough members feel strongly about giving some
> substantive guidance to the Board on this interpretation (and some clearly
> do), I would not be opposed to adding our varied viewpoints in the
> document. I appreciate that Sarah, J.Scott and Laura have already given
> their written input, and would be interested in others' opinions on the
> specific conditions where exclusive generics should be allowed. For our
> part, we respectfully believe that the GAC envisions at least some subset
> of exclusive generics being permitted, as otherwise, requiring a registry
> to open up to all competitors in the industry would no longer render the
> registry "exclusive." ****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> ** **
>
> Andy****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM, <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> wrote:****
>
> All of my clients, and my law firm, have business interests much broader
> than the domain industry.****
>
> ****
>
> Who are these people expressing grave concerns? Because I am only hearing
> competitors to so-called closed generic TLD applicants expressing concerns
> (including indirectly through their ICANN-connected government reps), with
> no evidence or any real specifics as to the parade of horribles they seem
> to envision. And certainly no counter-argument to the points I am
> raising. Do you or anyone else have any substantive response to any of
> those points?****
>
> ****
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh****
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW****
>
> Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087****
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* jscottevans(a)yahoo.com [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM
> *To:* icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com;
> sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com
> *Cc:* Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org;
> bc-gnso(a)icann.org****
>
>
> *Subject:* RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice
> on safeguards for new gTLDs****
>
> ****
>
> Mike:
>
> We appreciate your pov. However, there are many of us in this constituency
> that have business interests broader than the domain industry. In my
> discussions with these non-ICANNers, they have voiced grave concerns and
> want assurances similar to those put forward by Sarah and Laura in the
> latest draft. Do others gave perspective here?
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone****
>
> ****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>;
> *To: *'Laura Covington' <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>;
> 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>;
> *Cc: *'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; 'Steve DelBianco' <
> sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>;
> *Subject: *RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice
> on safeguards for new gTLDs
> *Sent: *Thu, May 23, 2013 7:21:46 PM ****
>
> ****
>
> We went through exercise of trying to define categories like this, in
> 2006. Then in the Vertical Integration WG. Then again recently in the
> IPC. It can’t be done, as far as I know.****
>
> ****
>
> The GAC didn’t bother to provide a definition either. Making any response
> problematic as we don’t really know what we are responding to.****
>
> ****
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh****
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW****
>
> Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087****
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM
> *To:* mike(a)rodenbaugh.com; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B'
> *Cc:* 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice
> on safeguards for new gTLDs****
>
> ****
>
> Hey, Mike, ****
>
> I'm totally open to considering other definitions/terminology for "closed
> generics" if you have ideas to propose. ****
>
> ****
>
> As to the separate issue of responding to the GAC's advice, participants
> on the call the other day seemed interested in including – or at least
> considering - language on closed generics rather than being silent. It
> seems clear – and understandable - what your point of view is. Anybody
> else? ****
>
> ****
>
> Laura****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Laura Covington****
>
> VP, Intellectual Property Policy****
>
> Yahoo! Inc.****
>
> lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com****
>
> 408.349.5187****
>
> ****
>
> *From: *"icann(a)rodenbaugh.com" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>
> *Organization: *Rodenbaugh Law
> *Reply-To: *"mike(a)rodenbaugh.com" <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM
> *To: *"Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <
> svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <
> sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
> *Cc: *'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, 'Steve DelBianco' <
> sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
> *Subject: *RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice
> on safeguards for new gTLDs****
>
> ****
>
> It seems that every dictionary word is a ‘pre-existing trademark’ at least
> insofar as it is registered as such somewhere (e.g. Benelux, in advance of
> the EU land rush). My examples are all registered at the USPTO. Any of
> those registrations could be purchased or even be previously registered by
> any so-called ‘closed generic’ TLD applicant.****
>
> ****
>
> Why is it legitimate for Apple to operate .apple to the exclusion of
> everyone else in the world that may have a legitimate use for a .apple
> domain name? (Maybe better examples are other new TLD applicants Abbott,
> Active, AFamilyCompany, Amazon, AmericanFamily… and the list goes on past
> Apple….) Yet it would not be legitimate for Weather.com to operate
> .weather that way?****
>
> ****
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh****
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW****
>
> Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087****
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM
> *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B
> *Cc:* Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice
> on safeguards for new gTLDs****
>
> ****
>
> Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your
> question? Pre-existing trademark? ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Laura Covington****
>
> VP, Intellectual Property Policy****
>
> Yahoo! Inc.****
>
> lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com****
>
> 408.349.5187****
>
> ****
>
> *From: *Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>
> *Reply-To: *Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM
> *To: *"Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <
> svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <
> sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
> *Cc: *Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <
> sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice
> on safeguards for new gTLDs****
>
> ****
>
> Hi Laura,****
>
> ****
>
> Then what about all the trademarks that exist for 'generic words'. Not
> just Apple, but also Sex, Drugs and even Rock 'n Roll (all registered at
> the USPTO)?****
>
> ****
>
> Beyond that, what about the broader notion that closed generic business
> models are more in the public interest than open copycat business models?
> The BC is on record with the position that restricted registries are
> preferred over open registries, because abuse and consumer harm are far
> less likely.****
>
> ****
>
> Best,****
>
> Mike****
>
> ****
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>
> *To:* "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; "Deutsch,
> Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
> *Cc:* Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; Steve DelBianco <
> sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:23 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice
> on safeguards for new gTLDs****
>
> ****
>
> I don’t know of any official definition of a closed generic TLD, but
> perhaps a starting place would be to say that it is a TLD that:****
>
> ****
>
> - Consists of a generic term/phrase which ****
> - Is not intended to represent a pre-existing trademark, and****
> - The registry operator does not intend to sell/grant/give second
> level domains to the (general?) public ****
>
> ****
>
> Laura Covington****
>
> VP, Intellectual Property Policy****
>
> Yahoo! Inc.****
>
> lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com****
>
> 408.349.5187****
>
> ****
>
> *From: *"svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM
> *To: *"Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
> *Cc: *Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <
> sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice
> on safeguards for new gTLDs****
>
> ****
>
> Thanks Sarah, J. Scott and Laura for this work. ****
>
> ****
>
> I am wondering if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a closed
> generic TLD somewhere?****
>
> ****
>
> Failing that, what is to stop the criteria suggested in this text being
> imposed on, say, a brand that has a term resembling a generic term as its
> brand name and that would understandably like to operate it for its own
> exclusive use?****
>
> ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> ****
>
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
> STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
>
> T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053****
>
> T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89****
>
> Skype: SVANGELDER
> www.StephaneVanGelder.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/>
> ----------------
> Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant****
>
> LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/****
>
> ****
>
> Le 22 mai 2013 à 22:58, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
> a écrit :****
>
> ** **
>
> All,****
>
>
> To follow up on our BC call this morning, we discussed why the existing
> draft asking ICANN to develop a non-specific public policy exemption in the
> Registry Code of Conduct for closed generics was not a good idea. Steve
> had encouraged me, J. Scott Evans and Laura Covington from Yahoo to put pen
> to paper and propose specific ideas (building on the Australia’s earlier
> GAC recommendations on closed generics) rather than for the BC to remain
> silent on this issue. ****
>
> ****
>
> Our proposed language is attached for Members’ consideration.****
>
> ****
>
>
> Sarah****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
>
> Sarah B. Deutsch
> Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
> Verizon Communications
> Phone: 703-351-3044
> Fax: 703-351-3670****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Elisa Cooper
> *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM
> *To:* Steve DelBianco
> *Cc:* bc-gnso(a)icann.org
> *Subject:* [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
> safeguards for new gTLDs****
>
> ****
>
> Steve,****
>
> ****
>
> Thank you so much for all of your work on this.****
>
> ****
>
> Please find attached my edits to Sarah’s draft.****
>
> ****
>
> As previously stated, I will recuse myself from comments related to Closed
> Generics. That said, I am concerned that the proposed comments in this
> draft may be at odds with our earlier position:
> http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20Closed%20G…
> .****
>
> ****
>
> Thank you again.****
>
> ****
>
> Best,****
>
> Elisa****
>
> ****
>
> Elisa Cooper****
>
> Director of Product Marketing****
>
> MarkMonitor****
>
> ****
>
> Elisa Cooper****
>
> Chair****
>
> ICANN Business Constituency****
>
> ****
>
> 208 389-5779 PH****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Deutsch, Sarah B
> *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2013 12:29 PM
> *To:* Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
> *Subject:* [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
> safeguards for new gTLDs****
>
> ****
>
> Steve, All,****
>
>
> Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big
> issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed
> generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed
> generics and formal objections have been filed. The focus on applying for
> an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns
> for the reasons outlined in the attached.****
>
> ****
>
> I’d suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the
> closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GAC’s concerns about
> closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in
> a generic term is in the larger public interest. ****
>
> ****
>
> Sarah****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Steve DelBianco
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM
> *To:* bc-gnso(a)icann.org
> *Subject:* [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
> safeguards for new gTLDs****
>
> ****
>
> ICANN’s new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it
> should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new
> gTLDs. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…>
> )****
>
> ****
>
> The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and
> transcripts on the BC Wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home>).
> Several BC members provided input, including text from Ron Andruff,
> Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack. ****
>
> ****
>
> Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and
> approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and
> comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013.****
>
> ****
>
> Steve DelBianco****
>
> Vice chair for policy coordination****
>
> Business Constituency****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> <BC Comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs DRAFT v1sd2 (2).docx>****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
> *G**o**o**g**l**e* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043***
> *
>
> (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>****
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
1
0
Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by Marilyn Cade May 23, 2013
by Marilyn Cade May 23, 2013
May 23, 2013
I do not advise or represent any client who is an applicant.
Your discussion was informative, and helpful as a not conflicted discussion base.
M
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 21:53:48
To: <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>; <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
The entity I represent on the BC (ICA) does not have a position on closed generics, so the following views are strictly personal and are provided for the purpose of contributing to this discussion --
If new gTLDs are indeed powerful new means to facilitate consumer search and to provide businesses and other potential registrants with more relevant and authoritative DNS addresses, then it is my belief that allowing a registry operator to be the exclusive registrant in a string in which it holds no trademark rights is inherently at odds with the competition and innovation goals that justified this vast expansion and reordering of the DNS. A closed generic registry is a monopoly, which is not innovative and is inherently anti-competitive. The history of the Internet is that innovation is developed at the edges, not by intermediaries, and a string that consists of a powerful dictionary word is far more likely to produce both innovation and competition if it is populated by tens of thousands of registrants rather than by just one -- especially since a primary motivation of the applicant may be to deny the availability of second level domains in the new string to its competitors.
For those reasons -- as well as because I believe that the Code of Conduct in the RA already requires a closed generic to seek an exemption from ICANN based on the criteria that granting the exemption will not harm the public interest -- I believe the BC should support the GAC position that a public interest standard be developed for strings in which the applicant proposes to be the sole registrant. (While I am personally up in the air whether closed registration should be allowed for a string that is a dictionary word as well as a trademark of the applicant, a public interest standard might accommodate such a situation as protecting the trademark right at the top level of the DNS.)
I am not just concerned about the first round. ICANN is a unique private sector organization imbued with a public trust. I believe that if ICANN permits non-trademark generic strings to go forward in the first round we will inevitably see a rush by applicants in the second round to secure dictionary word strings for their own permanent exclusive use and to deny such use to competitors. I think that would be an unseemly development and one that is detrimental to ICANN's reputation and long-term independence, and to the interests of those who favor ICANN's multi-stakeholder model (imperfect as it is) over potential replacements for DNS management.
I hope that input is helpful.
Regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:24 PM
To: J. Scott Evans ; Mike Rodenbaugh ; lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com ; Stéphane Van Gelder ; Sarah Deutsch
Cc: P0 Elisa Cooper ; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org ; Bc GNSO list
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
I certainly have concerns about closed generics, and do think there are issues of consumer confusion - .cloud was a big concern of mine. .mobile is an example of another concern, if it were closed.
.Hospital
.Bank
.Search
I can list many that raise questions to my mind.
I know some think that because .car.com might be registered by an auto manufacturer, that is equivalent to a GTLD. Not the case in my mind.
Otherwise, why even bother w gTLDs?
Recently I did a webinar with businesses in Africa. They were highly skeptical about fairness in closed generics operated by an industry player and excluding competitors. I also spoke to a number of governments this week.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: jscottevans(a)yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:46:32
To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Mike:
My new CMO, some marketers I know through my husband and some INTA members. I was bit surprised by their negative reactions. That said, most people could live with them with the appropriate safeguards in place. I think the language proposed by Sarah and Laura strikes the correct balance here.
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
----------------
From: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>;
To: <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>; <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>;
Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>;
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 8:20:35 PM
All of my clients, and my law firm, have business interests much broader than the domain industry.
Who are these people expressing grave concerns? Because I am only hearing competitors to so-called closed generic TLD applicants expressing concerns (including indirectly through their ICANN-connected government reps), with no evidence or any real specifics as to the parade of horribles they seem to envision. And certainly no counter-argument to the points I am raising. Do you or anyone else have any substantive response to any of those points?
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
From: jscottevans(a)yahoo.com [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM
To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com
Cc: Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Mike:
We appreciate your pov. However, there are many of us in this constituency that have business interests broader than the domain industry. In my discussions with these non-ICANNers, they have voiced grave concerns and want assurances similar to those put forward by Sarah and Laura in the latest draft. Do others gave perspective here?
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
----------------
From: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>;
To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>;
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>;
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 7:21:46 PM
We went through exercise of trying to define categories like this, in 2006. Then in the Vertical Integration WG. Then again recently in the IPC. It can't be done, as far as I know.
The GAC didn't bother to provide a definition either. Making any response problematic as we don't really know what we are responding to.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM
To: mike(a)rodenbaugh.com; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B'
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Hey, Mike,
I'm totally open to considering other definitions/terminology for "closed generics" if you have ideas to propose.
As to the separate issue of responding to the GAC's advice, participants on the call the other day seemed interested in including - or at least considering - language on closed generics rather than being silent. It seems clear - and understandable - what your point of view is. Anybody else?
Laura
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com
408.349.5187
From: "icann(a)rodenbaugh.com" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>
Organization: Rodenbaugh Law
Reply-To: "mike(a)rodenbaugh.com" <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com>
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM
To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
It seems that every dictionary word is a 'pre-existing trademark' at least insofar as it is registered as such somewhere (e.g. Benelux, in advance of the EU land rush). My examples are all registered at the USPTO. Any of those registrations could be purchased or even be previously registered by any so-called 'closed generic' TLD applicant.
Why is it legitimate for Apple to operate .apple to the exclusion of everyone else in the world that may have a legitimate use for a .apple domain name? (Maybe better examples are other new TLD applicants Abbott, Active, AFamilyCompany, Amazon, AmericanFamily. and the list goes on past Apple..) Yet it would not be legitimate for Weather.com to operate .weather that way?
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B
Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your question? Pre-existing trademark?
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com
408.349.5187
From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>
Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM
To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Hi Laura,
Then what about all the trademarks that exist for 'generic words'. Not just Apple, but also Sex, Drugs and even Rock 'n Roll (all registered at the USPTO)?
Beyond that, what about the broader notion that closed generic business models are more in the public interest than open copycat business models? The BC is on record with the position that restricted registries are preferred over open registries, because abuse and consumer harm are far less likely.
Best,
Mike
----------------
From: Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>
To: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
I don't know of any official definition of a closed generic TLD, but perhaps a starting place would be to say that it is a TLD that:
* Consists of a generic term/phrase which
* Is not intended to represent a pre-existing trademark, and
* The registry operator does not intend to sell/grant/give second level domains to the (general?) public
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com
408.349.5187
From: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM
To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Thanks Sarah, J. Scott and Laura for this work.
I am wondering if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a closed generic TLD somewhere?
Failing that, what is to stop the criteria suggested in this text being imposed on, say, a brand that has a term resembling a generic term as its brand name and that would understandably like to operate it for its own exclusive use?
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com <http://www.StephaneVanGelder.com> <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/>
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant> <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>
Le 22 mai 2013 à 22:58, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> a écrit :
All,
To follow up on our BC call this morning, we discussed why the existing draft asking ICANN to develop a non-specific public policy exemption in the Registry Code of Conduct for closed generics was not a good idea. Steve had encouraged me, J. Scott Evans and Laura Covington from Yahoo to put pen to paper and propose specific ideas (building on the Australia's earlier GAC recommendations on closed generics) rather than for the BC to remain silent on this issue.
Our proposed language is attached for Members' consideration.
Sarah
Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM
To: Steve DelBianco
Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Steve,
Thank you so much for all of your work on this.
Please find attached my edits to Sarah's draft.
As previously stated, I will recuse myself from comments related to Closed Generics. That said, I am concerned that the proposed comments in this draft may be at odds with our earlier position:http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20C….
Thank you again.
Best,
Elisa
Elisa Cooper
Director of Product Marketing
MarkMonitor
Elisa Cooper
Chair
ICANN Business Constituency
208 389-5779 PH
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:29 PM
To: Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Steve, All,
Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed generics and formal objections have been filed. The focus on applying for an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns for the reasons outlined in the attached.
I'd suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GAC's concerns about closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in a generic term is in the larger public interest.
Sarah
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM
To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
ICANN's new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new gTLDs. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…> )
The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and transcripts on the BC Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> ). Several BC members provided input, including text from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack.
Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013.
Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
Business Constituency
<BC Comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs DRAFT v1sd2 (2).docx>
2
1
Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by Marilyn Cade May 23, 2013
by Marilyn Cade May 23, 2013
May 23, 2013
I certainly have concerns about closed generics, and do think there are issues of consumer confusion - .cloud was a big concern of mine. .mobile is an example of another concern, if it were closed.
.Hospital
.Bank
.Search
I can list many that raise questions to my mind.
I know some think that because .car.com might be registered by an auto manufacturer, that is equivalent to a GTLD. Not the case in my mind.
Otherwise, why even bother w gTLDs?
Recently I did a webinar with businesses in Africa. They were highly skeptical about fairness in closed generics operated by an industry player and excluding competitors. I also spoke to a number of governments this week.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: jscottevans(a)yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:46:32
To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Mike:
My new CMO, some marketers I know through my husband and some INTA members. I was bit surprised by their negative reactions. That said, most people could live with them with the appropriate safeguards in place. I think the language proposed by Sarah and Laura strikes the correct balance here.
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
----------------
From: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>;
To: <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>; <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>;
Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>;
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 8:20:35 PM
All of my clients, and my law firm, have business interests much broader than the domain industry.
Who are these people expressing grave concerns? Because I am only hearing competitors to so-called closed generic TLD applicants expressing concerns (including indirectly through their ICANN-connected government reps), with no evidence or any real specifics as to the parade of horribles they seem to envision. And certainly no counter-argument to the points I am raising. Do you or anyone else have any substantive response to any of those points?
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
From: jscottevans(a)yahoo.com [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM
To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com
Cc: Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Mike:
We appreciate your pov. However, there are many of us in this constituency that have business interests broader than the domain industry. In my discussions with these non-ICANNers, they have voiced grave concerns and want assurances similar to those put forward by Sarah and Laura in the latest draft. Do others gave perspective here?
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
----------------
From: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>;
To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>;
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>;
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 7:21:46 PM
We went through exercise of trying to define categories like this, in 2006. Then in the Vertical Integration WG. Then again recently in the IPC. It can't be done, as far as I know.
The GAC didn't bother to provide a definition either. Making any response problematic as we don't really know what we are responding to.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM
To: mike(a)rodenbaugh.com; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B'
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Hey, Mike,
I'm totally open to considering other definitions/terminology for "closed generics" if you have ideas to propose.
As to the separate issue of responding to the GAC's advice, participants on the call the other day seemed interested in including - or at least considering - language on closed generics rather than being silent. It seems clear - and understandable - what your point of view is. Anybody else?
Laura
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com
408.349.5187
From: "icann(a)rodenbaugh.com" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>
Organization: Rodenbaugh Law
Reply-To: "mike(a)rodenbaugh.com" <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com>
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM
To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
It seems that every dictionary word is a 'pre-existing trademark' at least insofar as it is registered as such somewhere (e.g. Benelux, in advance of the EU land rush). My examples are all registered at the USPTO. Any of those registrations could be purchased or even be previously registered by any so-called 'closed generic' TLD applicant.
Why is it legitimate for Apple to operate .apple to the exclusion of everyone else in the world that may have a legitimate use for a .apple domain name? (Maybe better examples are other new TLD applicants Abbott, Active, AFamilyCompany, Amazon, AmericanFamily. and the list goes on past Apple..) Yet it would not be legitimate for Weather.com to operate .weather that way?
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B
Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your question? Pre-existing trademark?
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com
408.349.5187
From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>
Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM
To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Hi Laura,
Then what about all the trademarks that exist for 'generic words'. Not just Apple, but also Sex, Drugs and even Rock 'n Roll (all registered at the USPTO)?
Beyond that, what about the broader notion that closed generic business models are more in the public interest than open copycat business models? The BC is on record with the position that restricted registries are preferred over open registries, because abuse and consumer harm are far less likely.
Best,
Mike
----------------
From: Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>
To: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
I don't know of any official definition of a closed generic TLD, but perhaps a starting place would be to say that it is a TLD that:
* Consists of a generic term/phrase which
* Is not intended to represent a pre-existing trademark, and
* The registry operator does not intend to sell/grant/give second level domains to the (general?) public
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com
408.349.5187
From: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM
To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Thanks Sarah, J. Scott and Laura for this work.
I am wondering if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a closed generic TLD somewhere?
Failing that, what is to stop the criteria suggested in this text being imposed on, say, a brand that has a term resembling a generic term as its brand name and that would understandably like to operate it for its own exclusive use?
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/>
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>
Le 22 mai 2013 à 22:58, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> a écrit :
All,
To follow up on our BC call this morning, we discussed why the existing draft asking ICANN to develop a non-specific public policy exemption in the Registry Code of Conduct for closed generics was not a good idea. Steve had encouraged me, J. Scott Evans and Laura Covington from Yahoo to put pen to paper and propose specific ideas (building on the Australia's earlier GAC recommendations on closed generics) rather than for the BC to remain silent on this issue.
Our proposed language is attached for Members' consideration.
Sarah
Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM
To: Steve DelBianco
Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Steve,
Thank you so much for all of your work on this.
Please find attached my edits to Sarah's draft.
As previously stated, I will recuse myself from comments related to Closed Generics. That said, I am concerned that the proposed comments in this draft may be at odds with our earlier position:http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20C….
Thank you again.
Best,
Elisa
Elisa Cooper
Director of Product Marketing
MarkMonitor
Elisa Cooper
Chair
ICANN Business Constituency
208 389-5779 PH
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:29 PM
To: Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Steve, All,
Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed generics and formal objections have been filed. The focus on applying for an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns for the reasons outlined in the attached.
I'd suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GAC's concerns about closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in a generic term is in the larger public interest.
Sarah
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM
To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
ICANN's new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new gTLDs. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…> )
The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and transcripts on the BC Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> ). Several BC members provided input, including text from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack.
Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013.
Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
Business Constituency
<BC Comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs DRAFT v1sd2 (2).docx>
2
1
Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by Marilyn Cade May 23, 2013
by Marilyn Cade May 23, 2013
May 23, 2013
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: jscottevans(a)yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:10:28
To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Mike:
We appreciate your pov. However, there are many of us in this constituency that have business interests broader than the domain industry. In my discussions with these non-ICANNers, they have voiced grave concerns and want assurances similar to those put forward by Sarah and Laura in the latest draft. Do others gave perspective here?
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
----------------
From: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>;
To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>;
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>;
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 7:21:46 PM
We went through exercise of trying to define categories like this, in 2006. Then in the Vertical Integration WG. Then again recently in the IPC. It can't be done, as far as I know.
The GAC didn't bother to provide a definition either. Making any response problematic as we don't really know what we are responding to.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM
To: mike(a)rodenbaugh.com; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B'
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Hey, Mike,
I'm totally open to considering other definitions/terminology for "closed generics" if you have ideas to propose.
As to the separate issue of responding to the GAC's advice, participants on the call the other day seemed interested in including - or at least considering - language on closed generics rather than being silent. It seems clear - and understandable - what your point of view is. Anybody else?
Laura
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com
408.349.5187
From: "icann(a)rodenbaugh.com" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>
Organization: Rodenbaugh Law
Reply-To: "mike(a)rodenbaugh.com" <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com>
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM
To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
It seems that every dictionary word is a 'pre-existing trademark' at least insofar as it is registered as such somewhere (e.g. Benelux, in advance of the EU land rush). My examples are all registered at the USPTO. Any of those registrations could be purchased or even be previously registered by any so-called 'closed generic' TLD applicant.
Why is it legitimate for Apple to operate .apple to the exclusion of everyone else in the world that may have a legitimate use for a .apple domain name? (Maybe better examples are other new TLD applicants Abbott, Active, AFamilyCompany, Amazon, AmericanFamily. and the list goes on past Apple..) Yet it would not be legitimate for Weather.com to operate .weather that way?
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B
Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your question? Pre-existing trademark?
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com
408.349.5187
From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>
Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM
To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Hi Laura,
Then what about all the trademarks that exist for 'generic words'. Not just Apple, but also Sex, Drugs and even Rock 'n Roll (all registered at the USPTO)?
Beyond that, what about the broader notion that closed generic business models are more in the public interest than open copycat business models? The BC is on record with the position that restricted registries are preferred over open registries, because abuse and consumer harm are far less likely.
Best,
Mike
----------------
From: Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>
To: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
I don't know of any official definition of a closed generic TLD, but perhaps a starting place would be to say that it is a TLD that:
* Consists of a generic term/phrase which
* Is not intended to represent a pre-existing trademark, and
* The registry operator does not intend to sell/grant/give second level domains to the (general?) public
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com
408.349.5187
From: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM
To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Thanks Sarah, J. Scott and Laura for this work.
I am wondering if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a closed generic TLD somewhere?
Failing that, what is to stop the criteria suggested in this text being imposed on, say, a brand that has a term resembling a generic term as its brand name and that would understandably like to operate it for its own exclusive use?
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/>
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>
Le 22 mai 2013 à 22:58, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> a écrit :
All,
To follow up on our BC call this morning, we discussed why the existing draft asking ICANN to develop a non-specific public policy exemption in the Registry Code of Conduct for closed generics was not a good idea. Steve had encouraged me, J. Scott Evans and Laura Covington from Yahoo to put pen to paper and propose specific ideas (building on the Australia's earlier GAC recommendations on closed generics) rather than for the BC to remain silent on this issue.
Our proposed language is attached for Members' consideration.
Sarah
Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM
To: Steve DelBianco
Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Steve,
Thank you so much for all of your work on this.
Please find attached my edits to Sarah's draft.
As previously stated, I will recuse myself from comments related to Closed Generics. That said, I am concerned that the proposed comments in this draft may be at odds with our earlier position:http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20C….
Thank you again.
Best,
Elisa
Elisa Cooper
Director of Product Marketing
MarkMonitor
Elisa Cooper
Chair
ICANN Business Constituency
208 389-5779 PH
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:29 PM
To: Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Steve, All,
Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed generics and formal objections have been filed. The focus on applying for an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns for the reasons outlined in the attached.
I'd suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GAC's concerns about closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in a generic term is in the larger public interest.
Sarah
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM
To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
ICANN's new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new gTLDs. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…> )
The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and transcripts on the BC Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> ). Several BC members provided input, including text from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack.
Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013.
Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
Business Constituency
<BC Comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs DRAFT v1sd2 (2).docx>
1
0
Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by Marilyn Cade May 23, 2013
by Marilyn Cade May 23, 2013
May 23, 2013
I would like the BC to do our best to reach a position. I will have to read the transcript for details. My own position is that where the BC, as the user constituency, can shed light it is our responsibility as part of the process at ICANN to strive to do so.
Sometimes we can't. Let's try in this case. I will promise to read on flight back from Geneva IGF consultation,
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:05:21
To: <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Hey, Mike,
I'm totally open to considering other definitions/terminology for "closed generics" if you have ideas to propose.
As to the separate issue of responding to the GAC's advice, participants on the call the other day seemed interested in including - or at least considering - language on closed generics rather than being silent. It seems clear - and understandable - what your point of view is. Anybody else?
Laura
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com
408.349.5187
From: "icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> " <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >
Organization: Rodenbaugh Law
Reply-To: "mike(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> " <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> >
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM
To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> >
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> >
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
It seems that every dictionary word is a 'pre-existing trademark' at least insofar as it is registered as such somewhere (e.g. Benelux, in advance of the EU land rush). My examples are all registered at the USPTO. Any of those registrations could be purchased or even be previously registered by any so-called 'closed generic' TLD applicant.
Why is it legitimate for Apple to operate .apple to the exclusion of everyone else in the world that may have a legitimate use for a .apple domain name? (Maybe better examples are other new TLD applicants Abbott, Active, AFamilyCompany, Amazon, AmericanFamily. and the list goes on past Apple..) Yet it would not be legitimate for Weather.com to operate .weather that way?
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; Deutsch, Sarah B
Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your question? Pre-existing trademark?
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>
408.349.5187
From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >
Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM
To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> >
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Hi Laura,
Then what about all the trademarks that exist for 'generic words'. Not just Apple, but also Sex, Drugs and even Rock 'n Roll (all registered at the USPTO)?
Beyond that, what about the broader notion that closed generic business models are more in the public interest than open copycat business models? The BC is on record with the position that restricted registries are preferred over open registries, because abuse and consumer harm are far less likely.
Best,
Mike
----------------
From: Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >
To: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> >
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> >
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
I don't know of any official definition of a closed generic TLD, but perhaps a starting place would be to say that it is a TLD that:
* Consists of a generic term/phrase which
* Is not intended to represent a pre-existing trademark, and
* The registry operator does not intend to sell/grant/give second level domains to the (general?) public
Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>
408.349.5187
From: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM
To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> >
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Thanks Sarah, J. Scott and Laura for this work.
I am wondering if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a closed generic TLD somewhere?
Failing that, what is to stop the criteria suggested in this text being imposed on, say, a brand that has a term resembling a generic term as its brand name and that would understandably like to operate it for its own exclusive use?
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/>
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>
Le 22 mai 2013 à 22:58, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > a écrit :
All,
To follow up on our BC call this morning, we discussed why the existing draft asking ICANN to develop a non-specific public policy exemption in the Registry Code of Conduct for closed generics was not a good idea. Steve had encouraged me, J. Scott Evans and Laura Covington from Yahoo to put pen to paper and propose specific ideas (building on the Australia's earlier GAC recommendations on closed generics) rather than for the BC to remain silent on this issue.
Our proposed language is attached for Members' consideration.
Sarah
Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM
To: Steve DelBianco
Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Steve,
Thank you so much for all of your work on this.
Please find attached my edits to Sarah's draft.
As previously stated, I will recuse myself from comments related to Closed Generics. That said, I am concerned that the proposed comments in this draft may be at odds with our earlier position:http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20C….
Thank you again.
Best,
Elisa
Elisa Cooper
Director of Product Marketing
MarkMonitor
Elisa Cooper
Chair
ICANN Business Constituency
208 389-5779 PH
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:29 PM
To: Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Steve, All,
Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed generics and formal objections have been filed. The focus on applying for an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns for the reasons outlined in the attached.
I'd suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GAC's concerns about closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in a generic term is in the larger public interest.
Sarah
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM
To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>
Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
ICANN's new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new gTLDs. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…> )
The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and transcripts on the BC Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> ). Several BC members provided input, including text from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack.
Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013.
Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
Business Constituency
<BC Comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs DRAFT v1sd2 (2).docx>
1
0
Dear Members
Here are some notes on the FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget was published a few days early on May 10.
Comments close 31 May and reply 21 June ahead of special Board meeting to approve on 28th June.
FY14 starts 1 July.
Link to document.
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy14-10may13-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy14-10may13-en.htm
This year has been very different from previous as the new CEO has implemented a new project management system called ATASK.
Finance Staff have been busy setting this up and inputting data.
As a result there was no Framework Budget in February so the info in the draft Budget is new to the community.
The format this year is different, instead of 80 pages of document it is more 12 pages of glossy introduction and the rest tables.
Highlights – High level
Revenue
FY13
General revenue forecast is 76m$ slightly down on budget of 78m$ (71m$ in FY12 Forcast)
Plus gTLD at 174m$ up from an original 61m$ (this is loading for non batching)
FY14
General revenue budget is 88m$ ( historic transaction vols are -1% this is up due to 2.5 million .com contract change, 4 meeting sponships, New gTLD domain sales income in 7m).
Plus gTLD at applications 98 m$
Operating Expenses
FY13
Operating Expenses forecast 68m$ against 74m$ in FY13 Budget from 71m$ in FY12 Budget and 63m$ in FY12 Forcast
ie FY13 expenses are again significant under budget
large 30m to reserves
FY14
84 m$ plus 57$ for new gTLD
Staff levels
Last year I reported Staff levels up from 149 to 189
FY13 forcast is average 179 and end of year 233
FY14 Budget is average 259 and end of year 284
Highlights – Low Level
Here diving into ATASK
Take information descriptive from myicann.org - ‘projects’ tag
Projects Structure of Objectives – Goals – Portfolios – Programs
at the lowest level we have 160 ‘programmes’ which replaced the old projects
There is information of expenses in this xls
http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-projects-sp…
Where you can see the 160 programmes (same as those in (myicann.org) with all expenses broken down into Personnel, Travel, Prof Services, Admin
Problem for us now is that programmes are different from projects, so any year on year comparison is impossible.
I struggle a bit with the programme titles which read to me more like job descriptions than projects.
I think the work ahead in the BC comment is to go through the 160 programmes and ask ourselves what is this? If we don’t understand pose the question.
As an example:
FY13
Compliance - 60% up to 6.1 m$ in FY13 from 4.8 m$ in FY12 Budget and 3.8 m$ in FY12 Forecast
FY14 - 11 programes
CC meeting updates 157k$
CC Monthly updates 0
CC Other programmes 571 k$
CC Complaint Processing and Monitoring Activities 1473 k$
CC Audit Programme 1115 k$
CC Contract and policy driven iniciatives 103 k$
CC New gTLD programme readiness 162 k$
CC Outreach 0$
Improve CC programme 0$
CC Annaul report 0$
Total 3.5 m$
To answer Ron’s question again, looking at the historical perspective. I looks more like the large increase in compliance that we celebrated last year did not happen.
FY12 Budget was 4.8m
FY12 Forecast was 3.8m (need to research actual)
FY13 Budget was 6.9 m
FY13 Forecast was not reported?
FY14 Budget 3.5m
To point Andrew in the right direction for progress on Regional initiatives.
(and as a great example for all to try):
In myICANN.org projects
Select “Internationalization”
In Fadi’s Goals select “Engage Stakeholders globally”
In Sally’s Portfolios select “Engage Stakeholders Globally” and Tarik’s program “Implement Regional Strategies”
In Sally’s Portfolios select “Regional initiatives, Including centres of Excellence” and Sally’s program “Development and implement standard office infrastructure”
Turning to the xls
http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-projects-sp…
for each program we can see the expenditure breakdown.
Using the above example
program “Implement Regional Strategies” 5.5m$
program “Development and implement standard office infrastructure” 99.340$ (in xls programme “Other Programs for Regional Initiatives, including Centers of Excellence”
So it looks loke 5,5m$ which probably was not in last year but who knows?
And Andrews second Outreach question.
One would best go through the xls searching on the word Outreach for all the occurrences and investigate them one by one.
Hope this is helpful
Any comment or request for more elaboration in a particular area most welcome.
Any volunteers to review the 160 programms and either
Ask question what it is?
Opinion on high or low figure from BC perspective, comparing to previous years where possible.
There has not been much interest from the CSG work group this time around.
Angie and Gabi had been interested in this subject last year so I am hoping that it might continue.
Best
Chris Chaplow
5
4
The thanks sentence was intended for Chris!
:)
Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Movistar (http://www.movistar.com.ar)
-----Original Message-----
From: gabrielaszlak(a)gmail.com
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:54:26
To: Chris Chaplow<chris(a)andalucia.com>; <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Reply-To: gabrielaszlak(a)gmail.com
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN FY14 Draft Budget
Dear all!
I join everyone in thanking you so much for your work.
We are sorry that we won't be able to make it for the call. Celia and I are in an event with Vanda Scarterzini as speaker (for those who know her) organized by eInstituto and Mercosur Digital for cross border ecommerce -with Governments-.
We will read transcripts and share our views through email.
Thank you
Gabi and Celia
eInstituto
Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Movistar (http://www.movistar.com.ar)
-----Original Message-----
From: "Chris Chaplow" <chris(a)andalucia.com>
Sender: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:18:21
To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN FY14 Draft Budget
Dear Members,
Thanks Elisa, Ayesha, Ron, Stephane and Excom for the supportive comments.
On this afternoons member’s call I will do a very brief overview of the
ICANN FY14 Draft Budget just published.
Although not necessary for the call you might want to download a copy of the
budget here.
http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-fy14-16may13
-en.pdf
best
Chris Chaplow
Managing Director
Andalucia.com S.L.
Avenida del Carmen 9
Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo
1ª Planta, Oficina 30
Estepona, 29680
Malaga, Spain
Tel: + (34) 952 897 865
Fax: + (34) 952 897 874
E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com
Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com
Information about Andalucia, Spain.
1
0
Dear Members,
Thanks Elisa, Ayesha, Ron, Stephane and Excom for the supportive comments.
On this afternoons members call I will do a very brief overview of the
ICANN FY14 Draft Budget just published.
Although not necessary for the call you might want to download a copy of the
budget here.
http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-fy14-16may13
-en.pdf
best
Chris Chaplow
Managing Director
Andalucia.com S.L.
Avenida del Carmen 9
Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo
1ª Planta, Oficina 30
Estepona, 29680
Malaga, Spain
Tel: + (34) 952 897 865
Fax: + (34) 952 897 874
E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com
Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com
Information about Andalucia, Spain.
2
1
FW: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by Marilyn Cade May 22, 2013
by Marilyn Cade May 22, 2013
May 22, 2013
Dear colleagues
My apologies for not getting my attachment on the LAST email. Thanks to several of you who emailed me and called me to let me know.
I appreciate the work that all have done on this. For anyone who has trouble finding the GAC advice I mention, just so a search on the names of the relevant documents. :-)
I have now integratied my comments into the latest version.
Some of my concerns were captured by others.
I will note, however, that we have a keen responsibility to take note of the GAC advice of 2007 -- WHICH we strongly supported; and the Brussels Scorecard -- which we STRONGLY supported, and so on and so forth. The GAC accepted our own scorecard -- which we developed jointly with IPC and ISPs endorsed in general as areas of concern.
On many of the items of concern to BC, if you go through GAC advice in detail looking for what we have seen before, and often raised and supported as areas of concern as business user constituency, show significant consistency between the GAC advice in the Communique from Beijing, and in the BC's longstanding concerns.
I did note that someone cut out a comment from Sarah Deutsch regarding compliance with applicable law, which I agree with. I had added in some language, and cut out the statement that was proposed that the ICANN GC /legal do work on behalf of the applicants. That statement was very strange to me and I couldn't see in the comments/discussion where it would have come from.
IF any members want to debate that within the BC, I am happy to, but frankly, I don't think that the BC ever thought that ICANN would take on research about applicable laws to any applicant.I am sure no responsible applicant from a regulated industry would entrust an ICANN legal doc on such critical issues anyway, and I would doubt that any regulator who heard that was the 'plan' would burst into derisive laughter about whether that applicant was credible in any way.
Thinking about risks to ICANN and therefore risks to those who want to avoid governments taking over ICANN's functions or 'adding in more governmental intervention:
During the recent WTPF meeting in Geneva, many governments -- Latim and African and European -- raised the concern that ICANN and 'parts' of the ICANN community deny that governments are responsible for public interest. Questions were raised by many governments about how the GAC advice has been consistently ignored, or denied. Several BC members -- AT&T, Verizon, PayPal; myself, Ayesha, Amazon, Google were present in the WTPF. Ayesha and I stayed for the WSIS action line Forum on Friday.
Strong statements were made about concerns about geo names; and some governments are skeptical that we in the ICANN community are working in good faith with governments in their fulfilling their role within ICANN. It is not lost on the governments that we, the BC, have come to them over and over to discuss areas of concern. Please note that the concerns about geo/territorial names is NOT new. And, it is not a matter of trademark protection in any way. Geo/Territorial names are highly sensitive geo political issues to governments. I can't imagine how that was every NOT understood.
What the governments asked for is more discussion on such names.
I know that all of us are committed to respecting the role and mission of the BC as representing business users. It may be that some members are having to recuse themselves, and that is a positive and responsible decision, which I want to acknowledge and applaud. It is this kind of respect for our role in representing business users that makes the BC possible to respect for its integrity.
I made a lot of edits, and I am happy to discuss them. I do not propose to do that on the Members call, as there is a robust agenda already.
Marilyn Cade
From: sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org
To: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:57:41 +0000
No attachment, Marilyn
From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:08 PM
To: Sarah Deutsch <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, Bc GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
I have some serious concerns with some of the positions that the BC initial draft implied. The GAC principles of 2007, and several subsequent positions, which we supported led to the GAC advice. See my edits on both introduction, and several other spots.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: Deutsch Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:28:31
To: <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on
safeguards for new gTLDs
Steve, All,
Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed generics and formal objections have been
filed. The focus on applying for an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns for the reasons outlined in the attached.
I'd suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GAC's concerns about closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in a generic term is in the larger
public interest.
Sarah
From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM
To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
ICANN's new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new gTLDs. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…>
)
The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and transcripts on the BC Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> ). Several BC members provided input, including
text from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack.
Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013.
Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
Business Constituency
2
1