Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban
http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/08/01/governments-disagree-on-geographical-indi... 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
I am telling you all this is a dangerous precedent. I hereby request that the BC take up this issue and develop a formal opinion in this specific issue and the broader issue of the GAC's role. <br/><br/>I am happy to lead this effort.<br/><br/>J. Scott<br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
I appreciate that this is a sensitive topic, but I do not agree that the BC can take this up in an adversortial way. I don't have a client who has a position on this, but I do have strong concerns that the BC has to stay above the IP focus on this issue, as the IPC will lead on that, no doubt. And, the role of the GAC is much broader than just a position on geo names. For instance, the GAC was the BC's strong friend and ally on the strawman, and on the SSR issues, which are important to all of us as business users, whether large or small. This is going to be a contentious issue within the BC, as there are some members who have applications as new gTLDs, therefore, I am not supporting having a position, and if there is one, I think it has to be taken up broadly about the role of the GAC, and not specific to a particular topic like this one. There was strong division at the time of discussing the geo names during Durban, with members taking up a range of positions. I think that we have to be very respective that there are a range of views, and acknowledge that as indivudual companies, of course, anyone is free to advocate but only as their individual company , not identifying themselves with the BC. Even if we take a vote on this, it will be highly divisive and that isn't really helpful to the broader discussion about how the governments work within ICANN, and how to work with the governments here, versus at the ITU, or elsewhere. For anyone who hasn't seen the Brazilian proposal to take up [again] the discussion of Internet public policy -- read gTLD policy] at the ITU, I am happy to do a brief on that. I would prefer that the BC focus on those areas of strong agreement, and accept that members are, in their individual capacity, free to take other positions, Marilyn Cade Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:10:25 -0700 From: jscottevans@yahoo.com Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban To: psc@vlaw-dc.com; bc-gnso@icann.org I am telling you all this is a dangerous precedent. I hereby request that the BC take up this issue and develop a formal opinion in this specific issue and the broader issue of the GAC's role. I am happy to lead this effort. J. Scott Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; To: bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org>; Subject: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 3:58:37 PM http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/08/01/governments-disagree-on-geographical-indi... 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
Marilyn: My suggestion is to see if we can come up with a consensus position, taking in all points of view. I am confused as to why you would not want to have this discussion. Business owners pour millions of dollars into the IPR and brands are hugely important to business owners and users alike. Allowing the GAC to effectively take away a business's asset outside the purview of the political process is dangerous and bad for businesses and consumers. On your second, point. I note that the GAC has been an ally. So have the ISPCP and we have respectfully disagreed with them over the years yet continued to maintain a strong working relationship. Finally, I have talked with many GAC members who are desperate for business to speak up on this issue. For all these reasons, I must respectfully disagree with your position and ask that my request be granted. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 9:44 AM Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban I appreciate that this is a sensitive topic, but I do not agree that the BC can take this up in an adversortial way. I don't have a client who has a position on this, but I do have strong concerns that the BC has to stay above the IP focus on this issue, as the IPC will lead on that, no doubt. And, the role of the GAC is much broader than just a position on geo names. For instance, the GAC was the BC's strong friend and ally on the strawman, and on the SSR issues, which are important to all of us as business users, whether large or small. This is going to be a contentious issue within the BC, as there are some members who have applications as new gTLDs, therefore, I am not supporting having a position, and if there is one, I think it has to be taken up broadly about the role of the GAC, and not specific to a particular topic like this one. There was strong division at the time of discussing the geo names during Durban, with members taking up a range of positions. I think that we have to be very respective that there are a range of views, and acknowledge that as indivudual companies, of course, anyone is free to advocate but only as their individual company , not identifying themselves with the BC. Even if we take a vote on this, it will be highly divisive and that isn't really helpful to the broader discussion about how the governments work within ICANN, and how to work with the governments here, versus at the ITU, or elsewhere. For anyone who hasn't seen the Brazilian proposal to take up [again] the discussion of Internet public policy -- read gTLD policy] at the ITU, I am happy to do a brief on that. I would prefer that the BC focus on those areas of strong agreement, and accept that members are, in their individual capacity, free to take other positions, Marilyn Cade ________________________________ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:10:25 -0700 From: jscottevans@yahoo.com Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban To: psc@vlaw-dc.com; bc-gnso@icann.org I am telling you all this is a dangerous precedent. I hereby request that the BC take up this issue and develop a formal opinion in this specific issue and the broader issue of the GAC's role. I am happy to lead this effort. J. Scott Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone ________________________________ From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; To: bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org>; Subject: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 3:58:37 PM http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/08/01/governments-disagree-on-geographical-indi... 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
J. Scott: Without taking any position at this time as to whether the BC should weigh in on this issue or what our position should be, I want to raise a point of information - As I understand it, your concern is that the GAC has created a regional right in two geographic indicators which does not exist at law and that this is trumping a trademark right registered in multiple nations, including those raising objections . Putting aside the fact that the GAC can object for any reason without citing a legal basis (although the basis or lack thereof can be taken into account by the ICANN Board when considering whether to adopt the GAC advice), what is the strength of the purported trademark rights at the top level of the DNS when, up to now, trademark authorities and courts have held the position that no trademark rights can exist in a TLD because it cannot (examples: .com, .uk) serve as a source identifier? I concede that this view could change for at least some TLDs (e.g., .brands) as the new ones roll out, but that is the state of the law at this time as I understand it. Thanks for any light you can shed on this question. 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 From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 12:10 PM To: Phil Corwin; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban I am telling you all this is a dangerous precedent. I hereby request that the BC take up this issue and develop a formal opinion in this specific issue and the broader issue of the GAC's role. I am happy to lead this effort. J. Scott Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone ________________________________ From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>>; Subject: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 3:58:37 PM http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/08/01/governments-disagree-on-geographical-indi... 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3209/6518 - Release Date: 07/24/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
I agree this is an issue the BC should address, as it is another bad precedent of "GAC Rule". Phil, you state the US legal position re TLD strings as trademarks, but outside the US, at OHIM, in Denmark and quite a few other countries, trademark authorities have granted trademark registration to TLD strings, covering domain registry services and a wide variety of ancillary or additional services. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:10 AM To: J. Scott Evans; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban J. Scott: Without taking any position at this time as to whether the BC should weigh in on this issue or what our position should be, I want to raise a point of information - As I understand it, your concern is that the GAC has created a regional right in two geographic indicators which does not exist at law and that this is trumping a trademark right registered in multiple nations, including those raising objections . Putting aside the fact that the GAC can object for any reason without citing a legal basis (although the basis or lack thereof can be taken into account by the ICANN Board when considering whether to adopt the GAC advice), what is the strength of the purported trademark rights at the top level of the DNS when, up to now, trademark authorities and courts have held the position that no trademark rights can exist in a TLD because it cannot (examples: .com, .uk) serve as a source identifier? I concede that this view could change for at least some TLDs (e.g., .brands) as the new ones roll out, but that is the state of the law at this time as I understand it. Thanks for any light you can shed on this question. 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 From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 12:10 PM To: Phil Corwin; bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban I am telling you all this is a dangerous precedent. I hereby request that the BC take up this issue and develop a formal opinion in this specific issue and the broader issue of the GAC's role. I am happy to lead this effort. J. Scott Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone _____ From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> >; To: bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> <bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> >; Subject: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 3:58:37 PM http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/08/01/governments-disagree-on-geographical-indi cation-protection-at-tld-level/?utm_source=post <http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/08/01/governments-disagree-on-geographical-ind ication-protection-at-tld-level/?utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campai gn=alerts> &utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts 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 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3209/6518 - Release Date: 07/24/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Phil: In addition to the point made by Mike, marks that have a trademark reputation prior to the advent of something new generally can claim (and do) trademark rights in areas where trademark law would not generally afford protection. For example, Playboy sought to obtain a trademark registration in the US covering jewelry for a charm designed in the shape of its world-famous bunny head logo. The USPTO denied the registration claiming that the charm had no source identifying significance, but was merely ornamental as applied to jewelry. This determination was overturned on appeal. The final determination was that Playboy had substantial goodwill for the bunny head logo for publishing and entertainment services such that the recognizable goodwill and source identifying significance of the charm was there and was protectable. What I am saying about the .amazon, .spa, .date objections is that if GAC members want to object to the .amazon or other geographic terminology contained in a gTLD application under the Legal Objection process, let them do so. They don't want to do so, because they will lose. I am very concerned about the GAC becoming a legislature that grant rights/remedies that are unavailable under national and international law. The role of the GAC, as I stated at the public forum in Durban, is to advise the ICANN board on the rights, laws, treaties etc that exist and help guide the board to remain in compliance: not create new rights unrecognized by the legal schemes in national and international law. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com ________________________________ From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; 'J. Scott Evans' <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; bc-gnso@icann.org Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:41 AM Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban I agree this is an issue the BC should address, as it is another bad precedent of “GAC Rule”. Phil, you state the US legal position re TLD strings as trademarks, but outside the US, at OHIM, in Denmark and quite a few other countries, trademark authorities have granted trademark registration to TLD strings, covering domain registry services and a wide variety of ancillary or additional services. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:10 AM To: J. Scott Evans; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban J. Scott: Without taking any position at this time as to whether the BC should weigh in on this issue or what our position should be, I want to raise a point of information – As I understand it, your concern is that the GAC has created a regional right in two geographic indicators which does not exist at law and that this is trumping a trademark right registered in multiple nations, including those raising objections . Putting aside the fact that the GAC can object for any reason without citing a legal basis (although the basis or lack thereof can be taken into account by the ICANN Board when considering whether to adopt the GAC advice), what is the strength of the purported trademark rights at the top level of the DNS when, up to now, trademark authorities and courts have held the position that no trademark rights can exist in a TLD because it cannot (examples: .com, .uk) serve as a source identifier? I concede that this view could change for at least some TLDs (e.g., .brands) as the new ones roll out, but that is the state of the law at this time as I understand it. Thanks for any light you can shed on this question. 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 From:J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 12:10 PM To: Phil Corwin; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban I am telling you all this is a dangerous precedent. I hereby request that the BC take up this issue and develop a formal opinion in this specific issue and the broader issue of the GAC's role. I am happy to lead this effort. J. Scott Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone ________________________________ From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; To: bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org>; Subject: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 3:58:37 PM http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/08/01/governments-disagree-on-geographical-indi... 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3209/6518 - Release Date: 07/24/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Appreciate the feedback, J. Scott. 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: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 1:54 PM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com; Phil Corwin; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban Phil: In addition to the point made by Mike, marks that have a trademark reputation prior to the advent of something new generally can claim (and do) trademark rights in areas where trademark law would not generally afford protection. For example, Playboy sought to obtain a trademark registration in the US covering jewelry for a charm designed in the shape of its world-famous bunny head logo. The USPTO denied the registration claiming that the charm had no source identifying significance, but was merely ornamental as applied to jewelry. This determination was overturned on appeal. The final determination was that Playboy had substantial goodwill for the bunny head logo for publishing and entertainment services such that the recognizable goodwill and source identifying significance of the charm was there and was protectable. What I am saying about the .amazon, .spa, .date objections is that if GAC members want to object to the .amazon or other geographic terminology contained in a gTLD application under the Legal Objection process, let them do so. They don't want to do so, because they will lose. I am very concerned about the GAC becoming a legislature that grant rights/remedies that are unavailable under national and international law. The role of the GAC, as I stated at the public forum in Durban, is to advise the ICANN board on the rights, laws, treaties etc that exist and help guide the board to remain in compliance: not create new rights unrecognized by the legal schemes in national and international law. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ________________________________ From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>" <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; 'J. Scott Evans' <jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>>; bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:41 AM Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban I agree this is an issue the BC should address, as it is another bad precedent of “GAC Rule”. Phil, you state the US legal position re TLD strings as trademarks, but outside the US, at OHIM, in Denmark and quite a few other countries, trademark authorities have granted trademark registration to TLD strings, covering domain registry services and a wide variety of ancillary or additional services. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:10 AM To: J. Scott Evans; bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban J. Scott: Without taking any position at this time as to whether the BC should weigh in on this issue or what our position should be, I want to raise a point of information – As I understand it, your concern is that the GAC has created a regional right in two geographic indicators which does not exist at law and that this is trumping a trademark right registered in multiple nations, including those raising objections . Putting aside the fact that the GAC can object for any reason without citing a legal basis (although the basis or lack thereof can be taken into account by the ICANN Board when considering whether to adopt the GAC advice), what is the strength of the purported trademark rights at the top level of the DNS when, up to now, trademark authorities and courts have held the position that no trademark rights can exist in a TLD because it cannot (examples: .com, .uk) serve as a source identifier? I concede that this view could change for at least some TLDs (e.g., .brands) as the new ones roll out, but that is the state of the law at this time as I understand it. Thanks for any light you can shed on this question. 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 From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 12:10 PM To: Phil Corwin; bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban I am telling you all this is a dangerous precedent. I hereby request that the BC take up this issue and develop a formal opinion in this specific issue and the broader issue of the GAC's role. I am happy to lead this effort. J. Scott Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone ________________________________ From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>>; Subject: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 3:58:37 PM http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/08/01/governments-disagree-on-geographical-indi... 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3209/6518 - Release Date: 07/24/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3209/6518 - Release Date: 07/24/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
I'd be happy to work on this as well and see if we can find a consensus position. Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Deputy General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 12:10 PM To: psc@vlaw-dc.com <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban I am telling you all this is a dangerous precedent. I hereby request that the BC take up this issue and develop a formal opinion in this specific issue and the broader issue of the GAC's role. I am happy to lead this effort. J. Scott Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone ________________________________ From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; To: bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org>; Subject: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 3:58:37 PM http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/08/01/governments-disagree-on-geographical-indi... 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
+1. Happy to help if I can. Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Le 1 août 2013 à 19:46, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> a écrit :
I'd be happy to work on this as well and see if we can find a consensus position.
Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Deputy General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com
From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 12:10 PM To: psc@vlaw-dc.com <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban
I am telling you all this is a dangerous precedent. I hereby request that the BC take up this issue and develop a formal opinion in this specific issue and the broader issue of the GAC's role.
I am happy to lead this effort.
J. Scott
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; To: bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org>; Subject: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 3:58:37 PM
http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/08/01/governments-disagree-on-geographical-indi...
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
Thanks Stephane. I think you're perspective would be refreshing.<br/><br/>Steve, what do we need to do to get this started?<br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
I sent a response that raised questions about the challenges in this position, as several members did also raise concerns about how the BC has benefitted from GAC support on Strawman and SSR. I think this is going to be a contentious discussion within the BC, and I'd like to be sure that we are taking a broadly inclusive input to any discussion, including considering the importance of how the GAC has helped the BC's interests on gaining improvements on Strawman improvements. I know that Stephane, you didn't support the improvements that the BC fought for, along with the IPC, but those were broadly supported by the BC, and we frankly would not have gained the improvements, without the GAC listening, and accepting our concerns, and weighing in. On SSR, again, there is a shared concern about stability as the new gTLDs are introduced. It is important to the BC as users to also take into account our longer term views and concerns. Finally, I will say that working with the GAC within ICANN is much preferred to having to work with governments outside of ICANN at WIPO, ITU, and UN General Assembly, where the SME nature of the GAC is not always present in those discussions. I do want to be part of the discussions, but I also want to note that all discussions on the role of GAC need to be broad and inclusive and not focused on individual gTLD decisions. In fact, the BC membership charter is not about gTLD applications and concerns of applicants or contracted parties. That is extremely important to remember and to maintain the integrity of that uniqueness of our role. Marilyn Cade Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:32:16 -0700 From: jscottevans@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban To: stephvg@gmail.com; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com CC: psc@vlaw-dc.com; bc-gnso@icann.org Thanks Stephane. I think you're perspective would be refreshing. Steve, what do we need to do to get this started? Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone From: stephvg@gmail.com <stephvg@gmail.com>; To: Deutsch, Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>; Cc: 'jscottevans@yahoo.com' <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; 'psc@vlaw-dc.com' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; 'bc-gnso@icann.org' <bc-gnso@icann.org>; Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 6:16:18 PM +1. Happy to help if I can. Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053Skype: SVANGELDERwww.StephaneVanGelder.com---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Le 1 août 2013 à 19:46, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> a écrit : I'd be happy to work on this as well and see if we can find a consensus position. Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Deputy General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 12:10 PM To: psc@vlaw-dc.com <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban I am telling you all this is a dangerous precedent. I hereby request that the BC take up this issue and develop a formal opinion in this specific issue and the broader issue of the GAC's role. I am happy to lead this effort. J. Scott Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; To: bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org>; Subject: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 3:58:37 PM http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/08/01/governments-disagree-on-geographical-indi... Philip S. Corwin, Founding PrincipalVirtualaw LLC1155 F Street, NWSuite 1050Washington, DC 20004202-559-8597/Direct202-559-8750/Fax202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Marilyn <br/><br/>You are not being rational. SSR and straw man aren't in the BC Charter either but you all fought hard on those issues. I think your arguments fall flat. I too am concerned about the ITU; however, this concern will not prevent me from pointing out an injustice and strongly advocating a position that is pro-business.<br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
The argument that the GAC has helped the BC reach objectives in the past has been clearly made and is understood. I do not think anyone takes it lightly or underestimates the importance of having GAC support to this group. However, I do not see why this should prevent the BC from having an internal discussion on a topic that members seem to feel warrants discussion. Right now I have no idea where we stand as a group, and feel J Scott's proposal has merit because I'm not even sure I fully understand the issue and I would hope that through the discussion, I could gain a better understanding from others seem to have much more expertise on this. I read J Scott's request to be one for an internal discussion in order to try and ascertain a BC position. I think that would be useful. I do not have any preconceived ideas on the outcome at this stage, as the discussion has not even taken place. Surely once we know where we stand on an issue, then we can decide what to do with it. But not before. You say you'd like to be sure that we are taking a broadly inclusive input to any discussion. I couldn't agree more, but it's hard to do without first having that discussion. Thanks, Stéphane Le 1 août 2013 à 20:41, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> a écrit :
I sent a response that raised questions about the challenges in this position, as several members did also raise concerns about how the BC has benefitted from GAC support on Strawman and SSR. I think this is going to be a contentious discussion within the BC, and I'd like to be sure that we are taking a broadly inclusive input to any discussion, including considering the importance of how the GAC has helped the BC's interests on gaining improvements on Strawman improvements. I know that Stephane, you didn't support the improvements that the BC fought for, along with the IPC, but those were broadly supported by the BC, and we frankly would not have gained the improvements, without the GAC listening, and accepting our concerns, and weighing in.
On SSR, again, there is a shared concern about stability as the new gTLDs are introduced.
It is important to the BC as users to also take into account our longer term views and concerns. Finally, I will say that working with the GAC within ICANN is much preferred to having to work with governments outside of ICANN at WIPO, ITU, and UN General Assembly, where the SME nature of the GAC is not always present in those discussions.
I do want to be part of the discussions, but I also want to note that all discussions on the role of GAC need to be broad and inclusive and not focused on individual gTLD decisions.
In fact, the BC membership charter is not about gTLD applications and concerns of applicants or contracted parties. That is extremely important to remember and to maintain the integrity of that uniqueness of our role.
Marilyn Cade
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:32:16 -0700 From: jscottevans@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban To: stephvg@gmail.com; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com CC: psc@vlaw-dc.com; bc-gnso@icann.org
Thanks Stephane. I think you're perspective would be refreshing.
Steve, what do we need to do to get this started?
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
From: stephvg@gmail.com <stephvg@gmail.com>; To: Deutsch, Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>; Cc: 'jscottevans@yahoo.com' <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; 'psc@vlaw-dc.com' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; 'bc-gnso@icann.org' <bc-gnso@icann.org>; Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 6:16:18 PM
+1. Happy to help if I can.
Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
Le 1 août 2013 à 19:46, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> a écrit :
I'd be happy to work on this as well and see if we can find a consensus position.
Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Deputy General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com
From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 12:10 PM To: psc@vlaw-dc.com <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban
I am telling you all this is a dangerous precedent. I hereby request that the BC take up this issue and develop a formal opinion in this specific issue and the broader issue of the GAC's role.
I am happy to lead this effort.
J. Scott
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; To: bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org>; Subject: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 3:58:37 PM
http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/08/01/governments-disagree-on-geographical-indi...
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
I agree. To be a solid consensus, we need to be as broad and inclusive as possible. Thank you for your support Stephane.<br/><br/>J. Scott<br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
participants (6)
-
Deutsch, Sarah B -
icann＠rodenbaugh.com -
J. Scott Evans -
Marilyn Cade -
Phil Corwin -
stephvg＠gmail.com