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@yahoo-inc.com>
To: "svg@stephanevangelder.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" <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@yahoo-inc.com
408.349.5187

From: "svg@stephanevangelder.com" <svg@stephanevangelder.com>
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM
To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>
Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org" <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
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant

Le 22 mai 2013 à 22:58, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <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@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@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%20Generic%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@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@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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM
To: 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)
 
The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and transcripts on the BC 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>