Posting the list of "improvements" to the new gTLD program to the BC public list
Two members asked to have this list posted to the bc-GNSO list. Thus, I am posting it, but you already received it via bc-private, so you can disregard this. It is a copy of the list provided for the BC call. Bene will also put it on the BC WIKI, and as she and I finalize the grid/excel version, we will get that posted to members. As noted in the earlier email, I am targeting providing it to the ExComm for a sanity check on readability and undertandabiilty for members comments on the document, and then posting to the bc-GNSO list. Just a reminder that you will have the transcript from Bene, our Secretariat in a few days, or sooner, as well, as a memory supplement, or if someone in your company missed the call and you want to engage with them on the discussions. Marilyn Cade
Dear Members, Please find attached the transcript for yesterday's BC Call. I have also posted it to the BC Wiki in the teleconference section, along with all other transcripts and reports. As requested, I have also posted the document regarding the list of improvements to the new gTLD program to the Wiki. As a reminder, the BC Wiki can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat@icann.org On 11/01/2012 00:12, Marilyn Cade wrote:
Two members asked to have this list posted to the bc-GNSO list. Thus, I am posting it, but you already received it via bc-private, so you can disregard this. It is a copy of the list provided for the BC call.
Bene will also put it on the BC WIKI, and as she and I finalize the grid/excel version, we will get that posted to members. As noted in the earlier email, I am targeting providing it to the ExComm for a sanity check on readability and undertandabiilty for members comments on the document, and then posting to the bc-GNSO list.
Just a reminder that you will have the transcript from Bene, our Secretariat in a few days, or sooner, as well, as a memory supplement, or if someone in your company missed the call and you want to engage with them on the discussions.
Marilyn Cade
Thanks Bene. So Marilyn, re your Proposal No. 8 again, there was minimal discussion on the call. Bill Smith reiterated general operational concerns with the skeletal concept. Steve referred us back to prior BC support for a GPML concept, involving famous marks only, which died when it became evident that there is no workable way to define fame, among other reasons. Initially you said this is your proposal, then you said that "a number of members support it." At the moment that number appears to be "one" since nobody else has publicly supported even the bare concept, as far as I can tell from tracking the BC List. Until you answer some of the questions I and others have raised, there simply is no proposal that anyone can reasonably consider, and so the idea should be dropped from further discussion (as a general waste of time) until you do try to answer some of those questions. Here's one more too: what if there might be several owners of the same mark? United, Delta, probably a million other marks are registered to different parties in different places for different things. What if one of them wants to register in a new TLD, but another one of them has placed a permanent block? From your perspective, does that seem potentially unfair? How would you propose to address that issue? Thanks, Mike 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 Benedetta Rossi Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:48 AM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Posting the list of "improvements" to the new gTLD program to the BC public list Dear Members, Please find attached the transcript for yesterday's BC Call. I have also posted it to the BC Wiki in the teleconference section, along with all other transcripts and reports. As requested, I have also posted the document regarding the list of improvements to the new gTLD program to the Wiki. As a reminder, the BC Wiki can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat@icann.org On 11/01/2012 00:12, Marilyn Cade wrote: Two members asked to have this list posted to the bc-GNSO list. Thus, I am posting it, but you already received it via bc-private, so you can disregard this. It is a copy of the list provided for the BC call. Bene will also put it on the BC WIKI, and as she and I finalize the grid/excel version, we will get that posted to members. As noted in the earlier email, I am targeting providing it to the ExComm for a sanity check on readability and undertandabiilty for members comments on the document, and then posting to the bc-GNSO list. Just a reminder that you will have the transcript from Bene, our Secretariat in a few days, or sooner, as well, as a memory supplement, or if someone in your company missed the call and you want to engage with them on the discussions. Marilyn Cade
I'm speaking neither in support of, or in opposition to #8. A GPML seems difficult to manage on many levels, though I understand why it is attractive to many mark holders. Questions that we would need to consider include: * What criteria would be used to determine which marks could be protected and those that could not? * Are different fields of use considered? (Delta the airline, Delta the faucet manufacturer) * Are different jurisdictions considered? * What priorities, if any, would be applied to fields of use, jurisdiction, or other criteria? * How would appeals be handled? * Could a "protected mark" be sold or traded? (Delta as an example) Staying with Delta as an example, the US PTO has some 2,200 registrations for Delta. The first five (Delta with no other words) are: 85237943<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.3> Masco Corporation of Indiana (Delta Faucets) 85496225<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.7> Biolase Technology, Inc. (Dental instruments) 85493162<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.10> Delta Electronics, Inc. (Brushless motors, and lot's more) 85209409<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.42> MEDICAL DEPOT, INC. (Bedframes) 85219224<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.61> Delta Electronics, Inc. (Wind Power Electricity Generation Equipment) I'm sure Delta Airlines is somewhere in the pack. Let's assume .travel, .airline, .plumbing, and .faucet are new gTLDs. No doubt Delta (the airline) would like to register delta.travel, and delta.airline. Similarly, Delta (the faucet manufacturer) would like to register delta.plumbing, and delta.faucet. Unfortunately, Delta (of dental instrument fame) has already protected delta in the GPML we are considering proposing. It's fairly clear to me that each of the deltas should be allowed to have a second-level domain name in each "appropriate" new top-level domain. Unfortunately, our potential GPML prohibits this if any applicant is successful in gaining entry into the GPML. If we attempt to limit entries in the GMPL to only "really important" marks like Coke or McDonalds, issues remains with TLDs like .steel and .ancestry. Coke.steel seems a perfectly reasonable second-level domain for that industry as does mcdonalds.ancestry in the genealogy industry. Perhaps there is a way to develop a universal, globally operated, grand-unified mark registration list. While I'm not an IP attorney, I note that marks are registered by jurisdiction and field of use. Overlap in name is common (as demonstrated by the Delta example) so attempts to preclude that overlap are destined to fail, at some level. A last comment here, how does discussion of GPML fit within "user or consumer perspectives"? On Jan 11, 2012, at 10:24 AM, <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: Thanks Bene. So Marilyn, re your Proposal No. 8 again, there was minimal discussion on the call. Bill Smith reiterated general operational concerns with the skeletal concept. Steve referred us back to prior BC support for a GPML concept, involving famous marks only, which died when it became evident that there is no workable way to define fame, among other reasons. Initially you said this is your proposal, then you said that “a number of members support it.” At the moment that number appears to be “one” since nobody else has publicly supported even the bare concept, as far as I can tell from tracking the BC List. Until you answer some of the questions I and others have raised, there simply is no proposal that anyone can reasonably consider, and so the idea should be dropped from further discussion (as a general waste of time) until you do try to answer some of those questions. Here’s one more too: what if there might be several owners of the same mark? United, Delta, probably a million other marks are registered to different parties in different places for different things. What if one of them wants to register in a new TLD, but another one of them has placed a permanent block? From your perspective, does that seem potentially unfair? How would you propose to address that issue? Thanks, Mike 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> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedetta Rossi Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:48 AM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Posting the list of "improvements" to the new gTLD program to the BC public list Dear Members, Please find attached the transcript for yesterday's BC Call. I have also posted it to the BC Wiki in the teleconference section, along with all other transcripts and reports. As requested, I have also posted the document regarding the list of improvements to the new gTLD program to the Wiki. As a reminder, the BC Wiki can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org<http://www.bizconst.org> bc-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org> On 11/01/2012 00:12, Marilyn Cade wrote: Two members asked to have this list posted to the bc-GNSO list. Thus, I am posting it, but you already received it via bc-private, so you can disregard this. It is a copy of the list provided for the BC call. Bene will also put it on the BC WIKI, and as she and I finalize the grid/excel version, we will get that posted to members. As noted in the earlier email, I am targeting providing it to the ExComm for a sanity check on readability and undertandabiilty for members comments on the document, and then posting to the bc-GNSO list. Just a reminder that you will have the transcript from Bene, our Secretariat in a few days, or sooner, as well, as a memory supplement, or if someone in your company missed the call and you want to engage with them on the discussions. Marilyn Cade
Great examples and cogent explanation, Bill. Would love to hear replies from BC members who worked on GPML when it was under consideration. From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:05:43 -0700 To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>" <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>, bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Posting the list of "improvements" to the new gTLD program to the BC public list I'm speaking neither in support of, or in opposition to #8. A GPML seems difficult to manage on many levels, though I understand why it is attractive to many mark holders. Questions that we would need to consider include: * What criteria would be used to determine which marks could be protected and those that could not? * Are different fields of use considered? (Delta the airline, Delta the faucet manufacturer) * Are different jurisdictions considered? * What priorities, if any, would be applied to fields of use, jurisdiction, or other criteria? * How would appeals be handled? * Could a "protected mark" be sold or traded? (Delta as an example) Staying with Delta as an example, the US PTO has some 2,200 registrations for Delta. The first five (Delta with no other words) are: 85237943<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.3> Masco Corporation of Indiana (Delta Faucets) 85496225<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.7> Biolase Technology, Inc. (Dental instruments) 85493162<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.10> Delta Electronics, Inc. (Brushless motors, and lot's more) 85209409<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.42> MEDICAL DEPOT, INC. (Bedframes) 85219224<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.61> Delta Electronics, Inc. (Wind Power Electricity Generation Equipment) I'm sure Delta Airlines is somewhere in the pack. Let's assume .travel, .airline, .plumbing, and .faucet are new gTLDs. No doubt Delta (the airline) would like to register delta.travel, and delta.airline. Similarly, Delta (the faucet manufacturer) would like to register delta.plumbing, and delta.faucet. Unfortunately, Delta (of dental instrument fame) has already protected delta in the GPML we are considering proposing. It's fairly clear to me that each of the deltas should be allowed to have a second-level domain name in each "appropriate" new top-level domain. Unfortunately, our potential GPML prohibits this if any applicant is successful in gaining entry into the GPML. If we attempt to limit entries in the GMPL to only "really important" marks like Coke or McDonalds, issues remains with TLDs like .steel and .ancestry. Coke.steel seems a perfectly reasonable second-level domain for that industry as does mcdonalds.ancestry in the genealogy industry. Perhaps there is a way to develop a universal, globally operated, grand-unified mark registration list. While I'm not an IP attorney, I note that marks are registered by jurisdiction and field of use. Overlap in name is common (as demonstrated by the Delta example) so attempts to preclude that overlap are destined to fail, at some level. A last comment here, how does discussion of GPML fit within "user or consumer perspectives"? On Jan 11, 2012, at 10:24 AM, <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: Thanks Bene. So Marilyn, re your Proposal No. 8 again, there was minimal discussion on the call. Bill Smith reiterated general operational concerns with the skeletal concept. Steve referred us back to prior BC support for a GPML concept, involving famous marks only, which died when it became evident that there is no workable way to define fame, among other reasons. Initially you said this is your proposal, then you said that “a number of members support it.” At the moment that number appears to be “one” since nobody else has publicly supported even the bare concept, as far as I can tell from tracking the BC List. Until you answer some of the questions I and others have raised, there simply is no proposal that anyone can reasonably consider, and so the idea should be dropped from further discussion (as a general waste of time) until you do try to answer some of those questions. Here’s one more too: what if there might be several owners of the same mark? United, Delta, probably a million other marks are registered to different parties in different places for different things. What if one of them wants to register in a new TLD, but another one of them has placed a permanent block? From your perspective, does that seem potentially unfair? How would you propose to address that issue? Thanks, Mike 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><mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedetta Rossi Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:48 AM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Posting the list of "improvements" to the new gTLD program to the BC public list Dear Members, Please find attached the transcript for yesterday's BC Call. I have also posted it to the BC Wiki in the teleconference section, along with all other transcripts and reports. As requested, I have also posted the document regarding the list of improvements to the new gTLD program to the Wiki. As a reminder, the BC Wiki can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org<http://www.bizconst.org> bc-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org><mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org> On 11/01/2012 00:12, Marilyn Cade wrote: Two members asked to have this list posted to the bc-GNSO list. Thus, I am posting it, but you already received it via bc-private, so you can disregard this. It is a copy of the list provided for the BC call. Bene will also put it on the BC WIKI, and as she and I finalize the grid/excel version, we will get that posted to members. As noted in the earlier email, I am targeting providing it to the ExComm for a sanity check on readability and undertandabiilty for members comments on the document, and then posting to the bc-GNSO list. Just a reminder that you will have the transcript from Bene, our Secretariat in a few days, or sooner, as well, as a memory supplement, or if someone in your company missed the call and you want to engage with them on the discussions. Marilyn Cade
There were a number of limitations for inclusion in the GPML considered. 1. jurisdiction that requires examination 2. number of geographies registered within here's the final text from the IRT report… Trademark owners that wish to have a mark included on the GPML must provide to the IP Clearinghouse documented evidence that is capable of being verified of the criteria listed below. After the initial gTLD application round, these criteria should be evaluated and, if appropriate, revised. The recommended criteria are as follows: 8 The IRT received comments characterizing the GPML standards recommended in this report as favoring Western economies. The IRT has no intention of favoring any economy, country, or region; its intention was to develop objective criteria to identify globally protected trademarks. Page 17 of 69 ! Ownership by the trademark owner of [number] trademark registrations of national effect9 for the applied-for GPM10 that have issued in at least [number] countries11 across all 5 ICANN Regions with at least: ! [number] registrations in the North American region ! [number] registrations in the European region ! [number] registrations in the African region ! [number] registrations in the Asian/Australian/Pacific region ! [number] registrations in the Latin American/Caribbean region (NOTE: As a result of the public comments received in response to its initial draft report, the IRT has requested ICANN staff to collect relevant trademark registration data. The IRT has refrained from recommending particular numbers and thresholds at this time, pending the collection and review of the relevant data. The IRT emphasizes, however, that the final number and thresholds to be adopted for the GPML, including the required number of registrations and countries, must be sufficiently high such that the marks that qualify for the GPML are actually recognized as globally protected.) ! All trademark registrations must have issued on or before the date that GPML applications are first accepted and must be based on trademark registration applications filed on or before 1 November, 2008.12 ! The second level domain name for the GPM’s principal online presence must be identical to the GPM. Consideration of Public Comments Relating to GPML Requirements. The IRT considered those public comments that called for a requirement that all registrations relied upon by the trademark owner be for only those marks in current use. The IRT decided against such a requirement for a number of reasons including the fact that use is not a requirement of registration in a great majority of countries and the practical difficulties of implementing such a requirement. The IRT also considered those comments calling for a Regionally Protected Marks List and, in light of the time constraints within which it has worked, is not making any recommendations at this time about such a list. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:22:08 +0000 To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>>, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Posting the list of "improvements" to the new gTLD program to the BC public list Great examples and cogent explanation, Bill. Would love to hear replies from BC members who worked on GPML when it was under consideration. From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:05:43 -0700 To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>" <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>, bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Posting the list of "improvements" to the new gTLD program to the BC public list I'm speaking neither in support of, or in opposition to #8. A GPML seems difficult to manage on many levels, though I understand why it is attractive to many mark holders. Questions that we would need to consider include: * What criteria would be used to determine which marks could be protected and those that could not? * Are different fields of use considered? (Delta the airline, Delta the faucet manufacturer) * Are different jurisdictions considered? * What priorities, if any, would be applied to fields of use, jurisdiction, or other criteria? * How would appeals be handled? * Could a "protected mark" be sold or traded? (Delta as an example) Staying with Delta as an example, the US PTO has some 2,200 registrations for Delta. The first five (Delta with no other words) are: 85237943<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.3> Masco Corporation of Indiana (Delta Faucets) 85496225<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.7> Biolase Technology, Inc. (Dental instruments) 85493162<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.10> Delta Electronics, Inc. (Brushless motors, and lot's more) 85209409<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.42> MEDICAL DEPOT, INC. (Bedframes) 85219224<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.61> Delta Electronics, Inc. (Wind Power Electricity Generation Equipment) I'm sure Delta Airlines is somewhere in the pack. Let's assume .travel, .airline, .plumbing, and .faucet are new gTLDs. No doubt Delta (the airline) would like to register delta.travel, and delta.airline. Similarly, Delta (the faucet manufacturer) would like to register delta.plumbing, and delta.faucet. Unfortunately, Delta (of dental instrument fame) has already protected delta in the GPML we are considering proposing. It's fairly clear to me that each of the deltas should be allowed to have a second-level domain name in each "appropriate" new top-level domain. Unfortunately, our potential GPML prohibits this if any applicant is successful in gaining entry into the GPML. If we attempt to limit entries in the GMPL to only "really important" marks like Coke or McDonalds, issues remains with TLDs like .steel and .ancestry. Coke.steel seems a perfectly reasonable second-level domain for that industry as does mcdonalds.ancestry in the genealogy industry. Perhaps there is a way to develop a universal, globally operated, grand-unified mark registration list. While I'm not an IP attorney, I note that marks are registered by jurisdiction and field of use. Overlap in name is common (as demonstrated by the Delta example) so attempts to preclude that overlap are destined to fail, at some level. A last comment here, how does discussion of GPML fit within "user or consumer perspectives"? On Jan 11, 2012, at 10:24 AM, <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: Thanks Bene. So Marilyn, re your Proposal No. 8 again, there was minimal discussion on the call. Bill Smith reiterated general operational concerns with the skeletal concept. Steve referred us back to prior BC support for a GPML concept, involving famous marks only, which died when it became evident that there is no workable way to define fame, among other reasons. Initially you said this is your proposal, then you said that “a number of members support it.” At the moment that number appears to be “one” since nobody else has publicly supported even the bare concept, as far as I can tell from tracking the BC List. Until you answer some of the questions I and others have raised, there simply is no proposal that anyone can reasonably consider, and so the idea should be dropped from further discussion (as a general waste of time) until you do try to answer some of those questions. Here’s one more too: what if there might be several owners of the same mark? United, Delta, probably a million other marks are registered to different parties in different places for different things. What if one of them wants to register in a new TLD, but another one of them has placed a permanent block? From your perspective, does that seem potentially unfair? How would you propose to address that issue? Thanks, Mike 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><mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedetta Rossi Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:48 AM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Posting the list of "improvements" to the new gTLD program to the BC public list Dear Members, Please find attached the transcript for yesterday's BC Call. I have also posted it to the BC Wiki in the teleconference section, along with all other transcripts and reports. As requested, I have also posted the document regarding the list of improvements to the new gTLD program to the Wiki. As a reminder, the BC Wiki can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org<http://www.bizconst.org> bc-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org><mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org> On 11/01/2012 00:12, Marilyn Cade wrote: Two members asked to have this list posted to the bc-GNSO list. Thus, I am posting it, but you already received it via bc-private, so you can disregard this. It is a copy of the list provided for the BC call. Bene will also put it on the BC WIKI, and as she and I finalize the grid/excel version, we will get that posted to members. As noted in the earlier email, I am targeting providing it to the ExComm for a sanity check on readability and undertandabiilty for members comments on the document, and then posting to the bc-GNSO list. Just a reminder that you will have the transcript from Bene, our Secretariat in a few days, or sooner, as well, as a memory supplement, or if someone in your company missed the call and you want to engage with them on the discussions. Marilyn Cade
And I throw in that The GTML is for word marks and not Design Marks. Design marks are currently accepted for sunrise registrations. 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: chris@andalucia.com Web: www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Frederick Felman Enviado el: jueves, 12 de enero de 2012 0:08 Para: Steve DelBianco; Smith, Bill; Mike Rodenbaugh CC: Benedetta Rossi; Marilyn Cade; bc-gnso@icann.org Asunto: Re: [bc-gnso] Posting the list of "improvements" to the new gTLD program to the BC public list There were a number of limitations for inclusion in the GPML considered. 1. jurisdiction that requires examination 2. number of geographies registered within here's the final text from the IRT report Trademark owners that wish to have a mark included on the GPML must provide to the IP Clearinghouse documented evidence that is capable of being verified of the criteria listed below. After the initial gTLD application round, these criteria should be evaluated and, if appropriate, revised. The recommended criteria are as follows: 8 The IRT received comments characterizing the GPML standards recommended in this report as favoring Western economies. The IRT has no intention of favoring any economy, country, or region; its intention was to develop objective criteria to identify globally protected trademarks. Page 17 of 69 ! Ownership by the trademark owner of [number] trademark registrations of national effect9 for the applied-for GPM10 that have issued in at least [number] countries11 across all 5 ICANN Regions with at least: ! [number] registrations in the North American region ! [number] registrations in the European region ! [number] registrations in the African region ! [number] registrations in the Asian/Australian/Pacific region ! [number] registrations in the Latin American/Caribbean region (NOTE: As a result of the public comments received in response to its initial draft report, the IRT has requested ICANN staff to collect relevant trademark registration data. The IRT has refrained from recommending particular numbers and thresholds at this time, pending the collection and review of the relevant data. The IRT emphasizes, however, that the final number and thresholds to be adopted for the GPML, including the required number of registrations and countries, must be sufficiently high such that the marks that qualify for the GPML are actually recognized as globally protected.) ! All trademark registrations must have issued on or before the date that GPML applications are first accepted and must be based on trademark registration applications filed on or before 1 November, 2008.12 ! The second level domain name for the GPMs principal online presence must be identical to the GPM. Consideration of Public Comments Relating to GPML Requirements. The IRT considered those public comments that called for a requirement that all registrations relied upon by the trademark owner be for only those marks in current use. The IRT decided against such a requirement for a number of reasons including the fact that use is not a requirement of registration in a great majority of countries and the practical difficulties of implementing such a requirement. The IRT also considered those comments calling for a Regionally Protected Marks List and, in light of the time constraints within which it has worked, is not making any recommendations at this time about such a list. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:22:08 +0000 To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>>, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Posting the list of "improvements" to the new gTLD program to the BC public list Great examples and cogent explanation, Bill. Would love to hear replies from BC members who worked on GPML when it was under consideration. From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:05:43 -0700 To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>" <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>, bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Posting the list of "improvements" to the new gTLD program to the BC public list I'm speaking neither in support of, or in opposition to #8. A GPML seems difficult to manage on many levels, though I understand why it is attractive to many mark holders. Questions that we would need to consider include: * What criteria would be used to determine which marks could be protected and those that could not? * Are different fields of use considered? (Delta the airline, Delta the faucet manufacturer) * Are different jurisdictions considered? * What priorities, if any, would be applied to fields of use, jurisdiction, or other criteria? * How would appeals be handled? * Could a "protected mark" be sold or traded? (Delta as an example) Staying with Delta as an example, the US PTO has some 2,200 registrations for Delta. The first five (Delta with no other words) are: 85237943<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.3> Masco Corporation of Indiana (Delta Faucets) 85496225<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.7> Biolase Technology, Inc. (Dental instruments) 85493162<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.10> Delta Electronics, Inc. (Brushless motors, and lot's more) 85209409<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.42> MEDICAL DEPOT, INC. (Bedframes) 85219224<http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=4009:6dn8vn.2.61> Delta Electronics, Inc. (Wind Power Electricity Generation Equipment) I'm sure Delta Airlines is somewhere in the pack. Let's assume .travel, .airline, .plumbing, and .faucet are new gTLDs. No doubt Delta (the airline) would like to register delta.travel, and delta.airline. Similarly, Delta (the faucet manufacturer) would like to register delta.plumbing, and delta.faucet. Unfortunately, Delta (of dental instrument fame) has already protected delta in the GPML we are considering proposing. It's fairly clear to me that each of the deltas should be allowed to have a second-level domain name in each "appropriate" new top-level domain. Unfortunately, our potential GPML prohibits this if any applicant is successful in gaining entry into the GPML. If we attempt to limit entries in the GMPL to only "really important" marks like Coke or McDonalds, issues remains with TLDs like .steel and .ancestry. Coke.steel seems a perfectly reasonable second-level domain for that industry as does mcdonalds.ancestry in the genealogy industry. Perhaps there is a way to develop a universal, globally operated, grand-unified mark registration list. While I'm not an IP attorney, I note that marks are registered by jurisdiction and field of use. Overlap in name is common (as demonstrated by the Delta example) so attempts to preclude that overlap are destined to fail, at some level. A last comment here, how does discussion of GPML fit within "user or consumer perspectives"? On Jan 11, 2012, at 10:24 AM, <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.c om>> <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com><mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.c om>> wrote: Thanks Bene. So Marilyn, re your Proposal No. 8 again, there was minimal discussion on the call. Bill Smith reiterated general operational concerns with the skeletal concept. Steve referred us back to prior BC support for a GPML concept, involving famous marks only, which died when it became evident that there is no workable way to define fame, among other reasons. Initially you said this is your proposal, then you said that a number of members support it. At the moment that number appears to be one since nobody else has publicly supported even the bare concept, as far as I can tell from tracking the BC List. Until you answer some of the questions I and others have raised, there simply is no proposal that anyone can reasonably consider, and so the idea should be dropped from further discussion (as a general waste of time) until you do try to answer some of those questions. Heres one more too: what if there might be several owners of the same mark? United, Delta, probably a million other marks are registered to different parties in different places for different things. What if one of them wants to register in a new TLD, but another one of them has placed a permanent block? From your perspective, does that seem potentially unfair? How would you propose to address that issue? Thanks, Mike 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><mailto:owner-bc-gnso @icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedetta Rossi Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:48 AM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Posting the list of "improvements" to the new gTLD program to the BC public list Dear Members, Please find attached the transcript for yesterday's BC Call. I have also posted it to the BC Wiki in the teleconference section, along with all other transcripts and reports. As requested, I have also posted the document regarding the list of improvements to the new gTLD program to the Wiki. As a reminder, the BC Wiki can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org<http://www.bizconst.org> bc-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org><mailto:bc-secretar iat@icann.org> On 11/01/2012 00:12, Marilyn Cade wrote: Two members asked to have this list posted to the bc-GNSO list. Thus, I am posting it, but you already received it via bc-private, so you can disregard this. It is a copy of the list provided for the BC call. Bene will also put it on the BC WIKI, and as she and I finalize the grid/excel version, we will get that posted to members. As noted in the earlier email, I am targeting providing it to the ExComm for a sanity check on readability and undertandabiilty for members comments on the document, and then posting to the bc-GNSO list. Just a reminder that you will have the transcript from Bene, our Secretariat in a few days, or sooner, as well, as a memory supplement, or if someone in your company missed the call and you want to engage with them on the discussions. Marilyn Cade
participants (7)
-
Benedetta Rossi -
Chris Chaplow -
Frederick Felman -
icann＠rodenbaugh.com -
Marilyn Cade -
Smith, Bill -
Steve DelBianco