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
From: jscottevans@yahoo.com [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM
To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; lhc@yahoo-inc.com; svg@stephanevangelder.com; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com
Cc: Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com; sdelbianco@netchoice.org; bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Mike: |
From: icann@rodenbaugh.com <icann@rodenbaugh.com>;
To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>; <svg@stephanevangelder.com>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>;
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; <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 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. From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] 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? From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> 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? From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your question? Pre-existing trademark? From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> 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
|