FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on ICANN's proposed rules for TM Matching
As discussed during yesterday's BC meeting in Toronto, Elisa Cooper has proposed a comment regarding ICANN's proposed plan for matching rules for names entered in the Trademark Clearinghouse. ICANN's Public Comment page for the proposed matching rules is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-docs-24sep12-en.htm>. The Matching Rules document we are commenting on is here<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/matching-rules-24...>. Below is the BC comment proposed by Elisa Cooper: Subject: Trademark Clearinghouse Matching Rules for “@” and “&” Upon review of the possible methods for translating “@” and “&” as described in the “Explanatory Memorandum: Implementing the Matching Rules”, the Business Constituency requests that the languages for translations of “@” and “&” be chosen on a per-record basis by the trademark owner. The memorandum suggests that the language of translations should be based upon the official language(s) of the trademark registry. Restricting translations to the official language of the trademark registry is problematic, particularly for global brands or for trademarks registered in countries where there is no official language. Furthermore, requiring that translations of “@” and “&” match the official language of the trademark registry would likely result in additional costs to brand owners for additional submissions of the same mark to the Trademark Clearinghouse. Initial comments closed 16-Oct. At least one comment (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-docs-sep12/msg00007.html>) refers to the language restriction, so the BC could file a reply comment by the Reply closing date of 7-Nov. That gives us enough time to allow our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please reply all with your questions or suggestions regarding this draft, before 30-Oct-2012. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
Please give some thought to whether you think that the approach of the Board /staff taking notes in various forums and then taking up 40 minutes to announce what they heard and what they are doing about it meets your needs. I think it is a good idea, but they allow only 20 minutes to comment, in 2 min slots, which means only 10 people get to respond. Perhaps it is a good idea but should be a time slot of its own? This week's agenda has been incredibly full. It is challenging to imagine how members of the community can speak. Also, the strange item on the Forum about community of volunteers is put forward by NPOC, without support from other groups and is not a clear intent/purposed item. It is a time slot that you may want to consider as one you may make points in, but you will have to try to put them into the concept of how participants/stakeholders interact or work, or are attracted to ICANN for participation and engagement. One thought about what I'm hearing as a strange sort of 'word' divide: terminology for participants: Volunteers: I do not consider you, or others, or myself volunteers. We are participants in building and creating a governance organization -- ICANN, and in developing polices for coordination of the unique identifiers, and these decisions are affecting both social and economic, and political issues externally. :-) It's hard work, isn't it? But vital. For some, using the term 'volunteer' may sound trivilizing; for others, it is a badge of honor. BUT, it is a word that is creating a 'thought' divide -- between civil society and contracted parties. Contracted parties are also building and contributing to ICANN and many of them spend as much time on good work on Internet governance and ICANN governance [or more] than some of us do. Perhaps another word which is more broadly inclusive and respective of all may be needed -- how about stakeholder? Marilyn =================From: sdelbianco@netchoice.org To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on ICANN's proposed rules for TM Matching Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:38:35 +0000 As discussed during yesterday's BC meeting in Toronto, Elisa Cooper has proposed a comment regarding ICANN's proposed plan for matching rules for names entered in the Trademark Clearinghouse. ICANN's Public Comment page for the proposed matching rules is here. The Matching Rules document we are commenting on is here. Below is the BC comment proposed by Elisa Cooper: Subject: Trademark Clearinghouse Matching Rules for “@” and “&” Upon review of the possible methods for translating “@” and “&” as described in the “Explanatory Memorandum: Implementing the Matching Rules”, the Business Constituency requests that the languages for translations of “@” and “&” be chosen on a per-record basis by the trademark owner. The memorandum suggests that the language of translations should be based upon the official language(s) of the trademark registry. Restricting translations to the official language of the trademark registry is problematic, particularly for global brands or for trademarks registered in countries where there is no official language. Furthermore, requiring that translations of “@” and “&” match the official language of the trademark registry would likely result in additional costs to brand owners for additional submissions of the same mark to the Trademark Clearinghouse. Initial comments closed 16-Oct. At least one comment (link) refers to the language restriction, so the BC could file a reply comment by the Reply closing date of 7-Nov. That gives us enough time to allow our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please reply all with your questions or suggestions regarding this draft, before 30-Oct-2012. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
Sounds like a good point to make in the public forum today. When to do it? Maybe you get in line first, right after the board reports are given. From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Date: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:44 AM To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR CONSIDERATION: COMMENT ABOUT WHETHER THE BOARD'S APPROACH TO PUBLIC FORUM IS WORKING FOR THE COMMUNITY Please give some thought to whether you think that the approach of the Board /staff taking notes in various forums and then taking up 40 minutes to announce what they heard and what they are doing about it meets your needs. I think it is a good idea, but they allow only 20 minutes to comment, in 2 min slots, which means only 10 people get to respond. Perhaps it is a good idea but should be a time slot of its own? This week's agenda has been incredibly full. It is challenging to imagine how members of the community can speak. Also, the strange item on the Forum about community of volunteers is put forward by NPOC, without support from other groups and is not a clear intent/purposed item. It is a time slot that you may want to consider as one you may make points in, but you will have to try to put them into the concept of how participants/stakeholders interact or work, or are attracted to ICANN for participation and engagement. One thought about what I'm hearing as a strange sort of 'word' divide: terminology for participants: Volunteers: I do not consider you, or others, or myself volunteers. We are participants in building and creating a governance organization -- ICANN, and in developing polices for coordination of the unique identifiers, and these decisions are affecting both social and economic, and political issues externally. :-) It's hard work, isn't it? But vital. For some, using the term 'volunteer' may sound trivilizing; for others, it is a badge of honor. BUT, it is a word that is creating a 'thought' divide -- between civil society and contracted parties. Contracted parties are also building and contributing to ICANN and many of them spend as much time on good work on Internet governance and ICANN governance [or more] than some of us do. Perhaps another word which is more broadly inclusive and respective of all may be needed -- how about stakeholder? Marilyn ================= From: sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on ICANN's proposed rules for TM Matching Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:38:35 +0000 As discussed during yesterday's BC meeting in Toronto, Elisa Cooper has proposed a comment regarding ICANN's proposed plan for matching rules for names entered in the Trademark Clearinghouse. ICANN's Public Comment page for the proposed matching rules is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-docs-24sep12-en.htm>. The Matching Rules document we are commenting on is here<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/matching-rules-24...>. Below is the BC comment proposed by Elisa Cooper: Subject: Trademark Clearinghouse Matching Rules for “@” and “&” Upon review of the possible methods for translating “@” and “&” as described in the “Explanatory Memorandum: Implementing the Matching Rules”, the Business Constituency requests that the languages for translations of “@” and “&” be chosen on a per-record basis by the trademark owner. The memorandum suggests that the language of translations should be based upon the official language(s) of the trademark registry. Restricting translations to the official language of the trademark registry is problematic, particularly for global brands or for trademarks registered in countries where there is no official language. Furthermore, requiring that translations of “@” and “&” match the official language of the trademark registry would likely result in additional costs to brand owners for additional submissions of the same mark to the Trademark Clearinghouse. Initial comments closed 16-Oct. At least one comment (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-docs-sep12/msg00007.html>) refers to the language restriction, so the BC could file a reply comment by the Reply closing date of 7-Nov. That gives us enough time to allow our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please reply all with your questions or suggestions regarding this draft, before 30-Oct-2012. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
BC member Mike Roberts has drafted a comment for review, regarding ICANN's proposed plan for consolidating meeting locations. ICANN's Public Comment page for the proposed strategy is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/meetings-proposal-2012-02oct12-e...>. The strategy document is here<http://www.icann.org/en/about/participate/meetings-proposal-02oct12-en.pdf>. As I wrote last week, this proposal is to retain 3 meetings per year, two of which are always in Europe and Asia. For 2014, 2015, and 2016, here is ICANN's proposal: Asia/Pacific gets 1st meeting of each year Europe gets 2nd meeting of each year North America/Africa/Latin America alternate for the 3rd meeting. Below is the BC comment proposed by Mike Roberts: The BC endorses the staff proposal to revise the public meetings calendar and offers these additional comments. (a) There should be a continuous meetings evaluation process. ICANN public meetings are now large and expensive undertakings - over $2 million for ICANN, and undoubtedly more than that for participant travel and accommodation costs. The number, timing and scope of public meetings should be carefully reviewed to make best use of scarce resources. As ICANN changes, so should the meetings adjust to new circumstances. (b) Consistent with its commitment to openness and transparency, ICANN should place a high priority on selecting host country sites with minimal visa requirements and favorable travel costs for participants from developing nations. (c) Proposed contracts with venues and hotels should include a substantial discount from standard rates, and these discounts should be available to all attendees. (d) The Internet infrastructure of meeting sites must be more than "adequate." ICANN should continue to foster investment in Internet facilities everywhere, and should reward hosts who demonstrate their commitment to the network by providing superior access and bandwidth. (e) The BC suggests that the next step is for the staff to complete an evaluation matrix for the proposed future sites, identifying key selection factors, and post this information for additional public comment. Initial comments close 17-Nov. That gives us enough time to allow our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please reply all with your questions or suggestions regarding this draft, before 6-Nov-2012. Note that Several comments have already been filed on this topic (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/meetings-proposal-2012/>), including a sobering note from Michelle Chaplow about hotel pricing. Thanks again to Mike Roberts for taking the lead here. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
Mike and members, Thanks for the comments. In the ICANN proposal there is a list of evaluation criteria, like anything it comes down to weighting. Is there any criteria that BC members think are missing. Point (e) of Mikes draft is for more info from the meeting department and a further evaluation. I am thinking we should add other views at this stage in case a further published matrix does not happen. One important suggestion in the report, I have not seen referred to yet is the concept of selecting two alternating core cities in Europe and in Asia Pacific I pose the following question to BC members. Do you support the idea of core meeting cities? Do you support that the core will be EU and Asia and not USA? Do you believe meetings in "out of the way" locations are beneficial and in line with ICANN strategy/mission? If so why? Practical reasons and philosophical reasons may be considered. Do you believe meetings in "out of the way" locations are too inefficient. If so why? 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@andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. De: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Steve DelBianco Enviado el: miércoles, 24 de octubre de 2012 3:41 Para: bc - GNSO list Asunto: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on ICANN's proposed strategy for meetings BC member Mike Roberts has drafted a comment for review, regarding ICANN's proposed plan for consolidating meeting locations. ICANN's Public Comment page for the proposed strategy is here <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/meetings-proposal-2012-02oct12- en.htm> . The strategy document is here <http://www.icann.org/en/about/participate/meetings-proposal-02oct12-en.pdf> . As I wrote last week, this proposal is to retain 3 meetings per year, two of which are always in Europe and Asia. For 2014, 2015, and 2016, here is ICANN's proposal: Asia/Pacific gets 1st meeting of each year Europe gets 2nd meeting of each year North America/Africa/Latin America alternate for the 3rd meeting. Below is the BC comment proposed by Mike Roberts: The BC endorses the staff proposal to revise the public meetings calendar and offers these additional comments. (a) There should be a continuous meetings evaluation process. ICANN public meetings are now large and expensive undertakings - over $2 million for ICANN, and undoubtedly more than that for participant travel and accommodation costs. The number, timing and scope of public meetings should be carefully reviewed to make best use of scarce resources. As ICANN changes, so should the meetings adjust to new circumstances. (b) Consistent with its commitment to openness and transparency, ICANN should place a high priority on selecting host country sites with minimal visa requirements and favorable travel costs for participants from developing nations. (c) Proposed contracts with venues and hotels should include a substantial discount from standard rates, and these discounts should be available to all attendees. (d) The Internet infrastructure of meeting sites must be more than "adequate." ICANN should continue to foster investment in Internet facilities everywhere, and should reward hosts who demonstrate their commitment to the network by providing superior access and bandwidth. (e) The BC suggests that the next step is for the staff to complete an evaluation matrix for the proposed future sites, identifying key selection factors, and post this information for additional public comment. Initial comments close 17-Nov. That gives us enough time to allow our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please reply all with your questions or suggestions regarding this draft, before 6-Nov-2012. Note that Several comments have already been filed on this topic (link <http://forum.icann.org/lists/meetings-proposal-2012/> ), including a sobering note from Michelle Chaplow about hotel pricing. Thanks again to Mike Roberts for taking the lead here. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
ICANN has posted the proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) for public comment. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm>) Anjali Hansen admirably volunteered to draft BC comments. Several BC members provided input, including Ron Andruff, Bill Smith, Susan Kawaguchi, Zahid Jamil, and Elisa Cooper. We held a conference call on this topic on 2-May where many others provided ideas. (call minutes<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC+Members...> and Transcript<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/BC+MAY+02+2013.pdf...> ) Still, Anjali shows several pending questions in the attached draft. We need further help from BC members with direct experience dealing with registrars and privacy/proxy providers. 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 28-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 2:54 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Notes from Monday 8-April Beijing session on new RAA ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA (registrar Accreditation Agreement). The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA. On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendmen...>) The notes below may be helpful for volunteers Anjali Hansen and Zahid Jamil, who volunteered last week to draft BC comments on the new RAA. Law enforcement items were first priority for negotiation. ICANN says the LEA items are agreed by registrars, so ICANN added a dozen “new asks”, incl: - EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, - obligations for registrars using Resellers, - greater compliance tools, incl provision that “pattern or practice of cybersquatting” is grounds for termination ) Made progress on privacy /proxy services (P/P) since Toronto. Temporary P/P specification while ICANN develops accreditation program. In response to a compliance question, Samantha said the P/P Spec sets high level principles that are actually easy to enforce. At my request, Susan Kawaguchi is drafting BC comment on just this specification since she has significant experience with P/P issues. I asked about delay to the P/P accreditation in light of the Expert Group on Directory Services. Samantha said that Registrars truly want ICANN to do a P/P accreditation program so it would apply to all P/P providers – not just those affiliated with Registrars who have to sign the RAA. RAA will be a model document, so its not subject to negotiation with each registrar (except for bilateral amendments). So negotiations won’t be a bottleneck for getting registrars on-board. I asked whether the RAA needed exceptions for registrars created just to service a dot-brand gTLD. (single registrant, single-user) Such as transition on termination; Rights to data; transfers, etc. Staff and BC members could not come up with concerns that would call for exceptions. Public comment would be valuable in these areas: Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars. Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?) Penalties for inaccurate data Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries Unilateral amendment by ICANN. See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr Ron Andruff asked if the next iteration of the RAA will be posted for public comment. Answer was not definitive, so I asked Ron to draft a couple paragraphs of rationale for BC comments.
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
Thank you Steve for all the hard work and thanks to all BC members that contributed to the calls and the draft. We will review and send our comments. Gabi eInstituto -- *Dra. Gabriela Szlak * Abogada & Mediadora en Estudio ROSZ Directora Regional en eInstituto Consultora en Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías www.estudiorosz.com.ar www.einstituto.org <http://www.einstituto.com.ar/> www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar <http://www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar/> *Skype:* gabrielaszlak *Twitter: @*GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential. 2013/5/15 Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>
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
** **
Steve, Ron, others who have worked on this, thanks for a very impressive and well drafted document. Please find attached a redline with some edits which I suggest might make useful additions. These center mainly around showing our appreciation for the fact that there is a public comment period on this in the first place (I feel this was missing from the current draft), asking for more open GAC meetings (inline with recent discussions we've had on this list, plus Heather's own comments). I have also deleted Ron's add to safeguard 6,7,8. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with it and feel the original draft is sufficient to make the BC's point. Hope this helps. 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 LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Le 15 mai 2013 à 22:40, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> a écrit :
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 v1].docx>
All, Apologies, on my edits to Ron's text, I should have said that I had just modified the first part. I understand the full text for safeguards 6,7,8 is Ron's with some work from Steve. I did not mean that I deleted the whole text, just the first paragraph ;) Thanks, Stéphane Le 16 mai 2013 à 10:22, Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting <stephvg@gmail.com> a écrit :
Steve, Ron, others who have worked on this, thanks for a very impressive and well drafted document.
Please find attached a redline with some edits which I suggest might make useful additions. These center mainly around showing our appreciation for the fact that there is a public comment period on this in the first place (I feel this was missing from the current draft), asking for more open GAC meetings (inline with recent discussions we've had on this list, plus Heather's own comments). I have also deleted Ron's add to safeguard 6,7,8. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with it and feel the original draft is sufficient to make the BC's point.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
<BC Comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs [DRAFT v1] SVG edits.docx>
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 LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
Le 15 mai 2013 à 22:40, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> a écrit :
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 v1].docx>
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<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
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%20Ge.... 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> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM To: bc-gnso@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
I've also incorporated Stephane's comments too. Please find a revised version attached. 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 Elisa Cooper Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:34 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%20Ge.... 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> [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<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@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@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
Thanks for doing that Elisa. 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 LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Le 20 mai 2013 à 22:00, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> a écrit :
I’ve also incorporated Stephane’s comments too.
Please find a revised version attached.
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 Elisa Cooper Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:34 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%20Ge....
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 erc svg sd.docx>
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%20Ge.... 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> [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<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@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@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
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 LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/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%20Ge....
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>
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<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@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@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@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%20Closed%20Ge.... 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> [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<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@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@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>
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
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/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%20Ge.... 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>
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@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>, "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>> To: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@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@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@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%20Closed%20Ge.... 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> [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<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@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@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>
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> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; 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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >, "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> > To: "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> > Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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@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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner- <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@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; <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@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: <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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>
In the interests of transparency and to avoid any actual or perceived conflicts of interest, I'd ask everyone who has or will comment on this string to disclose whether you are applying for or representing applicants for closed generics and which closed generics you are advocating on behalf of. To address the assertion that closed generics are somehow necessarily better than open gTLDs, my position is that both have their risks and problems. We certainly don't like many of the open applications, which we believe will become havens for cybersquatting, fraud and abuse. But, as evidenced by the GAC language, Australia's specific red flags, and the many industry objections filed at ICANN and at the ICC, closed generics can carry their own risk of potential abuses. We wrote up what we think it means for responsible closed spaces to operate in the "public interest" and this included the following: 1) address antitrust and other anti-competition concerns; (2) minimize the risk of potential consumer confusion for users, who may not realize that the information, products or services promoted is provided via a closed or restricted registry; (3) appropriately and fairly define the class of potential second level domain name registrants; (4) prevent onerous and potentially anticompetitive registration fees; and (5) explore any necessary security and operational safeguards to minimize fraud, abuse and consumer complaints. Sarah From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:13 PM To: 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; 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@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>, "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>> To: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@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@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@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%20Closed%20Ge.... 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> [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<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@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@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>
I represent various TLD applicants for all types of models -- brand, niche, restricted, single-registrant, open. I advocate on behalf of the principles involved, namely that closed TLD business models are inherently no different (or at least no more likely harmful) than sole ownership of second-level domain names. Moreover such models were always discussed, accepted and even encouraged throughout the 6-year PDP right up until it was revealed that Google and Amazon had applied for 175 of them combined. You do not cite any evidence of any potential harm. Nor did the GAC, which merely tracked the public interest language already in the AGB Spec 9. Nor did Australia, which is but one government which cited no evidence or anything remotely specific as to potential harm. Nor have I seen any evidence from anyone who has objected to any so-called closed generic application. They complain because their competitor would control the string, but this is much like their competitor (or they themselves, or someone else) controls the relevant .com, .net, .org and important ccTLD domains in their industry today. As for the five factors you cite, I have questions and comments: 1) address antitrust and other anti-competition concerns; -- Are you aware of any evidence of likely harm, or of harm caused by second-level generic domain registrations? How could an applicant address these concerns to your satisfaction? How is this within ICANNs remit? 2) minimize the risk of potential consumer confusion for users, who may not realize that the information, products or services promoted is provided via a closed or restricted registry; -- Why is this a concern? Why would any consumers care about this? Has there been such confusion or concern in .museum, .aero, .travel, .jobs? Or with respect to generic second level names? 3) appropriately and fairly define the class of potential second level domain name registrants; -- Single registrant models mean there is one registrant. 4) prevent onerous and potentially anticompetitive registration fees; -- Inapplicable in single registrant models. 5) explore any necessary security and operational safeguards to minimize fraud, abuse and consumer complaints. These concerns are already explored in response to Q28 and 29 and in other areas of the TLD application, with requirements contained in the Registry Agreement. Also it seems inherently unlikely to have such problems in a single registrant model since the registrant is legally responsible for all activity within the TLD. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Deutsch, Sarah B [mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:46 AM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs In the interests of transparency and to avoid any actual or perceived conflicts of interest, Id ask everyone who has or will comment on this string to disclose whether you are applying for or representing applicants for closed generics and which closed generics you are advocating on behalf of. To address the assertion that closed generics are somehow necessarily better than open gTLDs, my position is that both have their risks and problems. We certainly dont like many of the open applications, which we believe will become havens for cybersquatting, fraud and abuse. But, as evidenced by the GAC language, Australias specific red flags, and the many industry objections filed at ICANN and at the ICC, closed generics can carry their own risk of potential abuses. We wrote up what we think it means for responsible closed spaces to operate in the public interest and this included the following: 1) address antitrust and other anti-competition concerns; (2) minimize the risk of potential consumer confusion for users, who may not realize that the information, products or services promoted is provided via a closed or restricted registry; (3) appropriately and fairly define the class of potential second level domain name registrants; (4) prevent onerous and potentially anticompetitive registration fees; and (5) explore any necessary security and operational safeguards to minimize fraud, abuse and consumer complaints. Sarah From: Mike Rodenbaugh [ <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:13 PM To: 'Laura Covington'; <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; <mailto: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 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> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [ <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; <mailto: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 Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your question? Pre-existing trademark? Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh < <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh < <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." < <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 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 < <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com> To: " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 <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@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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [ <mailto:owner-> mailto:owner- <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@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; <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@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: <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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>
Can you tell us which clients are you representing for which closed generics? From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:22 PM To: Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs I represent various TLD applicants for all types of models -- brand, niche, restricted, single-registrant, open. I advocate on behalf of the principles involved, namely that closed TLD business models are inherently no different (or at least no more likely harmful) than sole ownership of second-level domain names. Moreover such models were always discussed, accepted and even encouraged throughout the 6-year PDP... right up until it was revealed that Google and Amazon had applied for 175 of them combined. You do not cite any evidence of any potential harm. Nor did the GAC, which merely tracked the "public interest" language already in the AGB Spec 9. Nor did Australia, which is but one government which cited no evidence or anything remotely "specific" as to potential harm. Nor have I seen any evidence from anyone who has objected to any so-called closed generic application. They complain because their competitor would control the string, but this is much like their competitor (or they themselves, or someone else) controls the relevant .com, .net, .org and important ccTLD domains in their industry today. As for the five factors you cite, I have questions and comments: 1) address antitrust and other anti-competition concerns; -- Are you aware of any evidence of likely harm, or of harm caused by second-level generic domain registrations? How could an applicant address these concerns to your satisfaction? How is this within ICANN's remit? 2) minimize the risk of potential consumer confusion for users, who may not realize that the information, products or services promoted is provided via a closed or restricted registry; -- Why is this a concern? Why would any consumers care about this? Has there been such confusion or concern in .museum, .aero, .travel, .jobs? Or with respect to generic second level names? 3) appropriately and fairly define the class of potential second level domain name registrants; -- Single registrant models mean there is one registrant. 4) prevent onerous and potentially anticompetitive registration fees; -- Inapplicable in single registrant models. 5) explore any necessary security and operational safeguards to minimize fraud, abuse and consumer complaints. - These concerns are already explored in response to Q28 and 29 and in other areas of the TLD application, with requirements contained in the Registry Agreement. Also it seems inherently unlikely to have such problems in a single registrant model since the registrant is legally responsible for all activity within the TLD. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: Deutsch, Sarah B [mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:46 AM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 In the interests of transparency and to avoid any actual or perceived conflicts of interest, I'd ask everyone who has or will comment on this string to disclose whether you are applying for or representing applicants for closed generics and which closed generics you are advocating on behalf of. To address the assertion that closed generics are somehow necessarily better than open gTLDs, my position is that both have their risks and problems. We certainly don't like many of the open applications, which we believe will become havens for cybersquatting, fraud and abuse. But, as evidenced by the GAC language, Australia's specific red flags, and the many industry objections filed at ICANN and at the ICC, closed generics can carry their own risk of potential abuses. We wrote up what we think it means for responsible closed spaces to operate in the "public interest" and this included the following: 1) address antitrust and other anti-competition concerns; (2) minimize the risk of potential consumer confusion for users, who may not realize that the information, products or services promoted is provided via a closed or restricted registry; (3) appropriately and fairly define the class of potential second level domain name registrants; (4) prevent onerous and potentially anticompetitive registration fees; and (5) explore any necessary security and operational safeguards to minimize fraud, abuse and consumer complaints. Sarah From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:13 PM To: 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>, "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>> To: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@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@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@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%20Closed%20Ge.... 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> [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<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@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@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>
I dont know how you define closed generic. All of my clients intending to operate single registrant TLDs have relevant trademark registrations. I also dont see how your question is relevant to this discussion. 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 Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:40 PM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Can you tell us which clients are you representing for which closed generics? From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:22 PM To: Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 I represent various TLD applicants for all types of models -- brand, niche, restricted, single-registrant, open. I advocate on behalf of the principles involved, namely that closed TLD business models are inherently no different (or at least no more likely harmful) than sole ownership of second-level domain names. Moreover such models were always discussed, accepted and even encouraged throughout the 6-year PDP right up until it was revealed that Google and Amazon had applied for 175 of them combined. You do not cite any evidence of any potential harm. Nor did the GAC, which merely tracked the public interest language already in the AGB Spec 9. Nor did Australia, which is but one government which cited no evidence or anything remotely specific as to potential harm. Nor have I seen any evidence from anyone who has objected to any so-called closed generic application. They complain because their competitor would control the string, but this is much like their competitor (or they themselves, or someone else) controls the relevant .com, .net, .org and important ccTLD domains in their industry today. As for the five factors you cite, I have questions and comments: 1) address antitrust and other anti-competition concerns; -- Are you aware of any evidence of likely harm, or of harm caused by second-level generic domain registrations? How could an applicant address these concerns to your satisfaction? How is this within ICANNs remit? 2) minimize the risk of potential consumer confusion for users, who may not realize that the information, products or services promoted is provided via a closed or restricted registry; -- Why is this a concern? Why would any consumers care about this? Has there been such confusion or concern in .museum, .aero, .travel, .jobs? Or with respect to generic second level names? 3) appropriately and fairly define the class of potential second level domain name registrants; -- Single registrant models mean there is one registrant. 4) prevent onerous and potentially anticompetitive registration fees; -- Inapplicable in single registrant models. 5) explore any necessary security and operational safeguards to minimize fraud, abuse and consumer complaints. These concerns are already explored in response to Q28 and 29 and in other areas of the TLD application, with requirements contained in the Registry Agreement. Also it seems inherently unlikely to have such problems in a single registrant model since the registrant is legally responsible for all activity within the TLD. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Deutsch, Sarah B [mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:46 AM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> ; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 In the interests of transparency and to avoid any actual or perceived conflicts of interest, Id ask everyone who has or will comment on this string to disclose whether you are applying for or representing applicants for closed generics and which closed generics you are advocating on behalf of. To address the assertion that closed generics are somehow necessarily better than open gTLDs, my position is that both have their risks and problems. We certainly dont like many of the open applications, which we believe will become havens for cybersquatting, fraud and abuse. But, as evidenced by the GAC language, Australias specific red flags, and the many industry objections filed at ICANN and at the ICC, closed generics can carry their own risk of potential abuses. We wrote up what we think it means for responsible closed spaces to operate in the public interest and this included the following: 1) address antitrust and other anti-competition concerns; (2) minimize the risk of potential consumer confusion for users, who may not realize that the information, products or services promoted is provided via a closed or restricted registry; (3) appropriately and fairly define the class of potential second level domain name registrants; (4) prevent onerous and potentially anticompetitive registration fees; and (5) explore any necessary security and operational safeguards to minimize fraud, abuse and consumer complaints. Sarah From: Mike Rodenbaugh [ <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:13 PM To: 'Laura Covington'; <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; <mailto: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 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> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [ <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; <mailto: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 Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your question? Pre-existing trademark? Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh < <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh < <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." < <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 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 < <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com> To: " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 <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@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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [ <mailto:owner-> mailto:owner- <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@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; <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@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: <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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>
I'm not sure how you're defining all the various categories of your clients (niche, exclusive, restricted etc.), but perhaps include those 3 categories or just exclude anyone who is applying for a .brand or an open gTLD. Since replying to your questions below requires delving into concerns about specific closed gTLDs, members would benefit from knowing which ones you are representing. Full disclosure should be required regardless since BC members wear different hats and everyone would benefit from greater transparency when discussing contentious topics on the list. From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:21 PM To: Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs I don't know how you define 'closed generic'. All of my clients intending to operate single registrant TLDs have relevant trademark registrations. I also don't see how your question is relevant to this discussion. 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 Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:40 PM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 Can you tell us which clients are you representing for which closed generics? From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:22 PM To: Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 I represent various TLD applicants for all types of models -- brand, niche, restricted, single-registrant, open. I advocate on behalf of the principles involved, namely that closed TLD business models are inherently no different (or at least no more likely harmful) than sole ownership of second-level domain names. Moreover such models were always discussed, accepted and even encouraged throughout the 6-year PDP... right up until it was revealed that Google and Amazon had applied for 175 of them combined. You do not cite any evidence of any potential harm. Nor did the GAC, which merely tracked the "public interest" language already in the AGB Spec 9. Nor did Australia, which is but one government which cited no evidence or anything remotely "specific" as to potential harm. Nor have I seen any evidence from anyone who has objected to any so-called closed generic application. They complain because their competitor would control the string, but this is much like their competitor (or they themselves, or someone else) controls the relevant .com, .net, .org and important ccTLD domains in their industry today. As for the five factors you cite, I have questions and comments: 1) address antitrust and other anti-competition concerns; -- Are you aware of any evidence of likely harm, or of harm caused by second-level generic domain registrations? How could an applicant address these concerns to your satisfaction? How is this within ICANN's remit? 2) minimize the risk of potential consumer confusion for users, who may not realize that the information, products or services promoted is provided via a closed or restricted registry; -- Why is this a concern? Why would any consumers care about this? Has there been such confusion or concern in .museum, .aero, .travel, .jobs? Or with respect to generic second level names? 3) appropriately and fairly define the class of potential second level domain name registrants; -- Single registrant models mean there is one registrant. 4) prevent onerous and potentially anticompetitive registration fees; -- Inapplicable in single registrant models. 5) explore any necessary security and operational safeguards to minimize fraud, abuse and consumer complaints. - These concerns are already explored in response to Q28 and 29 and in other areas of the TLD application, with requirements contained in the Registry Agreement. Also it seems inherently unlikely to have such problems in a single registrant model since the registrant is legally responsible for all activity within the TLD. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: Deutsch, Sarah B [mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:46 AM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 In the interests of transparency and to avoid any actual or perceived conflicts of interest, I'd ask everyone who has or will comment on this string to disclose whether you are applying for or representing applicants for closed generics and which closed generics you are advocating on behalf of. To address the assertion that closed generics are somehow necessarily better than open gTLDs, my position is that both have their risks and problems. We certainly don't like many of the open applications, which we believe will become havens for cybersquatting, fraud and abuse. But, as evidenced by the GAC language, Australia's specific red flags, and the many industry objections filed at ICANN and at the ICC, closed generics can carry their own risk of potential abuses. We wrote up what we think it means for responsible closed spaces to operate in the "public interest" and this included the following: 1) address antitrust and other anti-competition concerns; (2) minimize the risk of potential consumer confusion for users, who may not realize that the information, products or services promoted is provided via a closed or restricted registry; (3) appropriately and fairly define the class of potential second level domain name registrants; (4) prevent onerous and potentially anticompetitive registration fees; and (5) explore any necessary security and operational safeguards to minimize fraud, abuse and consumer complaints. Sarah From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:13 PM To: 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>, "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>> To: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@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@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@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%20Closed%20Ge.... 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> [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<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@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@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>
How to distinguish a .brand and a so-called closed generic TLD string is the essence of one of my questions. Not just my question but a question raised by many people, which is why no such categorization has ever happened. I gave plenty of examples anyone can delve into, Abbott through Apple. And/or we can discuss the biggest lightning rods , .books, .search, .blog . How exactly does Verizon see any harm from so-called closed generic business models? It might be helpful for members to understand that too. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Deutsch, Sarah B [mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:33 PM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Im not sure how youre defining all the various categories of your clients (niche, exclusive, restricted etc.), but perhaps include those 3 categories or just exclude anyone who is applying for a .brand or an open gTLD. Since replying to your questions below requires delving into concerns about specific closed gTLDs, members would benefit from knowing which ones you are representing. Full disclosure should be required regardless since BC members wear different hats and everyone would benefit from greater transparency when discussing contentious topics on the list. From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:21 PM To: Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 I dont know how you define closed generic. All of my clients intending to operate single registrant TLDs have relevant trademark registrations. I also dont see how your question is relevant to this discussion. 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 Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:40 PM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> ; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 Can you tell us which clients are you representing for which closed generics? From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:22 PM To: Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 I represent various TLD applicants for all types of models -- brand, niche, restricted, single-registrant, open. I advocate on behalf of the principles involved, namely that closed TLD business models are inherently no different (or at least no more likely harmful) than sole ownership of second-level domain names. Moreover such models were always discussed, accepted and even encouraged throughout the 6-year PDP right up until it was revealed that Google and Amazon had applied for 175 of them combined. You do not cite any evidence of any potential harm. Nor did the GAC, which merely tracked the public interest language already in the AGB Spec 9. Nor did Australia, which is but one government which cited no evidence or anything remotely specific as to potential harm. Nor have I seen any evidence from anyone who has objected to any so-called closed generic application. They complain because their competitor would control the string, but this is much like their competitor (or they themselves, or someone else) controls the relevant .com, .net, .org and important ccTLD domains in their industry today. As for the five factors you cite, I have questions and comments: 1) address antitrust and other anti-competition concerns; -- Are you aware of any evidence of likely harm, or of harm caused by second-level generic domain registrations? How could an applicant address these concerns to your satisfaction? How is this within ICANNs remit? 2) minimize the risk of potential consumer confusion for users, who may not realize that the information, products or services promoted is provided via a closed or restricted registry; -- Why is this a concern? Why would any consumers care about this? Has there been such confusion or concern in .museum, .aero, .travel, .jobs? Or with respect to generic second level names? 3) appropriately and fairly define the class of potential second level domain name registrants; -- Single registrant models mean there is one registrant. 4) prevent onerous and potentially anticompetitive registration fees; -- Inapplicable in single registrant models. 5) explore any necessary security and operational safeguards to minimize fraud, abuse and consumer complaints. These concerns are already explored in response to Q28 and 29 and in other areas of the TLD application, with requirements contained in the Registry Agreement. Also it seems inherently unlikely to have such problems in a single registrant model since the registrant is legally responsible for all activity within the TLD. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Deutsch, Sarah B [mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:46 AM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> ; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 In the interests of transparency and to avoid any actual or perceived conflicts of interest, Id ask everyone who has or will comment on this string to disclose whether you are applying for or representing applicants for closed generics and which closed generics you are advocating on behalf of. To address the assertion that closed generics are somehow necessarily better than open gTLDs, my position is that both have their risks and problems. We certainly dont like many of the open applications, which we believe will become havens for cybersquatting, fraud and abuse. But, as evidenced by the GAC language, Australias specific red flags, and the many industry objections filed at ICANN and at the ICC, closed generics can carry their own risk of potential abuses. We wrote up what we think it means for responsible closed spaces to operate in the public interest and this included the following: 1) address antitrust and other anti-competition concerns; (2) minimize the risk of potential consumer confusion for users, who may not realize that the information, products or services promoted is provided via a closed or restricted registry; (3) appropriately and fairly define the class of potential second level domain name registrants; (4) prevent onerous and potentially anticompetitive registration fees; and (5) explore any necessary security and operational safeguards to minimize fraud, abuse and consumer complaints. Sarah From: Mike Rodenbaugh [ <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:13 PM To: 'Laura Covington'; <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; <mailto: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 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> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [ <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; <mailto: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 Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your question? Pre-existing trademark? Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh < <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh < <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." < <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 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 < <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com> To: " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 <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@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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [ <mailto:owner-> mailto:owner- <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@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; <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@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: <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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>
Mike, I'm happy to discuss specific concerns about specific harms and applications once you disclose who you're representing. Are you representing any BC members, for example? Are you representing any entity who has received a community objection for a closed generic at the ICC? Can you tell us any information? Sarah From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:48 PM To: Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs How to distinguish a .brand and a so-called closed generic TLD string is the essence of one of my questions. Not just my question but a question raised by many people, which is why no such categorization has ever happened. I gave plenty of examples anyone can delve into, Abbott through Apple. And/or we can discuss the biggest lightning rods..., .books, .search, .blog.... How exactly does Verizon see any harm from so-called closed generic business models? It might be helpful for members to understand that too. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: Deutsch, Sarah B [mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:33 PM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 I'm not sure how you're defining all the various categories of your clients (niche, exclusive, restricted etc.), but perhaps include those 3 categories or just exclude anyone who is applying for a .brand or an open gTLD. Since replying to your questions below requires delving into concerns about specific closed gTLDs, members would benefit from knowing which ones you are representing. Full disclosure should be required regardless since BC members wear different hats and everyone would benefit from greater transparency when discussing contentious topics on the list. From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:21 PM To: Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 I don't know how you define 'closed generic'. All of my clients intending to operate single registrant TLDs have relevant trademark registrations. I also don't see how your question is relevant to this discussion. 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 Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:40 PM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 Can you tell us which clients are you representing for which closed generics? From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:22 PM To: Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 I represent various TLD applicants for all types of models -- brand, niche, restricted, single-registrant, open. I advocate on behalf of the principles involved, namely that closed TLD business models are inherently no different (or at least no more likely harmful) than sole ownership of second-level domain names. Moreover such models were always discussed, accepted and even encouraged throughout the 6-year PDP... right up until it was revealed that Google and Amazon had applied for 175 of them combined. You do not cite any evidence of any potential harm. Nor did the GAC, which merely tracked the "public interest" language already in the AGB Spec 9. Nor did Australia, which is but one government which cited no evidence or anything remotely "specific" as to potential harm. Nor have I seen any evidence from anyone who has objected to any so-called closed generic application. They complain because their competitor would control the string, but this is much like their competitor (or they themselves, or someone else) controls the relevant .com, .net, .org and important ccTLD domains in their industry today. As for the five factors you cite, I have questions and comments: 1) address antitrust and other anti-competition concerns; -- Are you aware of any evidence of likely harm, or of harm caused by second-level generic domain registrations? How could an applicant address these concerns to your satisfaction? How is this within ICANN's remit? 2) minimize the risk of potential consumer confusion for users, who may not realize that the information, products or services promoted is provided via a closed or restricted registry; -- Why is this a concern? Why would any consumers care about this? Has there been such confusion or concern in .museum, .aero, .travel, .jobs? Or with respect to generic second level names? 3) appropriately and fairly define the class of potential second level domain name registrants; -- Single registrant models mean there is one registrant. 4) prevent onerous and potentially anticompetitive registration fees; -- Inapplicable in single registrant models. 5) explore any necessary security and operational safeguards to minimize fraud, abuse and consumer complaints. - These concerns are already explored in response to Q28 and 29 and in other areas of the TLD application, with requirements contained in the Registry Agreement. Also it seems inherently unlikely to have such problems in a single registrant model since the registrant is legally responsible for all activity within the TLD. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: Deutsch, Sarah B [mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:46 AM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>; 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 In the interests of transparency and to avoid any actual or perceived conflicts of interest, I'd ask everyone who has or will comment on this string to disclose whether you are applying for or representing applicants for closed generics and which closed generics you are advocating on behalf of. To address the assertion that closed generics are somehow necessarily better than open gTLDs, my position is that both have their risks and problems. We certainly don't like many of the open applications, which we believe will become havens for cybersquatting, fraud and abuse. But, as evidenced by the GAC language, Australia's specific red flags, and the many industry objections filed at ICANN and at the ICC, closed generics can carry their own risk of potential abuses. We wrote up what we think it means for responsible closed spaces to operate in the "public interest" and this included the following: 1) address antitrust and other anti-competition concerns; (2) minimize the risk of potential consumer confusion for users, who may not realize that the information, products or services promoted is provided via a closed or restricted registry; (3) appropriately and fairly define the class of potential second level domain name registrants; (4) prevent onerous and potentially anticompetitive registration fees; and (5) explore any necessary security and operational safeguards to minimize fraud, abuse and consumer complaints. Sarah From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:13 PM To: 'Laura Covington'; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>, "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>> To: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@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@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@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%20Closed%20Ge.... 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> [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<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@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@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>
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@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>" <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>" <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>, "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>, "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>> To: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@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@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@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%20Closed%20Ge.... 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> [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<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@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@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>
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] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com; svg@stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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. <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: " <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com" < <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: " <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> mike@rodenbaugh.com" < <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> mike@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." < <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, 'Steve DelBianco' < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 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> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [ <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; <mailto: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 Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your question? Pre-existing trademark? Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh < <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh < <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." < <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 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 < <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com> To: " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 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. <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 <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" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> 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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [ <mailto:owner-> mailto:owner- <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@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; <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@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: <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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>
Mike:<br/><br/>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?<br/><br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
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@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: 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@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >; To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >; <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>
; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; <bc-gnso@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 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] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> ; svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 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. <javascript:return> lhc@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: " <javascript:return> icann@rodenbaugh.com" < <javascript:return> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: " <javascript:return> mike@rodenbaugh.com" < <javascript:return> mike@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." < <javascript:return> lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, " <javascript:return> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <javascript:return> svg@stephanevangelder.com>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" < <javascript:return> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' < <javascript:return> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, 'Steve DelBianco' < <javascript:return> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <javascript:return> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <javascript:return> 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> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [ <javascript:return> mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; <javascript:return> svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; <javascript:return> 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. <javascript:return> lhc@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh < <javascript:return> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh < <javascript:return> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." < <javascript:return> lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, " <javascript:return> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <javascript:return> svg@stephanevangelder.com>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <javascript:return> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <javascript:return> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco < <javascript:return> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <javascript:return> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <javascript:return> 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 < <javascript:return> lhc@yahoo-inc.com> To: " <javascript:return> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <javascript:return> svg@stephanevangelder.com>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <javascript:return> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <javascript:return> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; Steve DelBianco < <javascript:return> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; " <javascript:return> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <javascript:return> 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@yahoo-inc.com <javascript:return> 408.349.5187 From: " <javascript:return> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <javascript:return> svg@stephanevangelder.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <javascript:return> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <javascript:return> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco < <javascript:return> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <javascript:return> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <javascript:return> 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@verizon.com <javascript:return> > 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: <javascript:return> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [ <javascript:return> mailto:owner- <javascript:return> bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: <javascript:return> 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: <javascript:return> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [ <javascript:return> mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:29 PM To: Steve DelBianco; <javascript:return> 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: <javascript:return> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [ <javascript:return> mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM To: <javascript:return> 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>
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@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****
** **
*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:
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@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.****
****
Mike Rodenbaugh****
RODENBAUGH LAW****
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087****
****
*From:* Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM *To:* mike@rodenbaugh.com; svg@stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' *Cc:* 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com****
408.349.5187****
****
*From: *"icann@rodenbaugh.com" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> *Organization: *Rodenbaugh Law *Reply-To: *"mike@rodenbaugh.com" <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM *To: *"Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> *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****
****
*From:* Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh; svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B *Cc:* Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; 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@yahoo-inc.com****
408.349.5187****
****
*From: *Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> *Reply-To: *Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM *To: *"Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> *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@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 <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@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%20Ge... .****
****
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<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 *Google* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
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@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@yahoo.com; icann@rodenbaugh.com; Laura Covington; svg@stephanevangelder.com; sarah.b.deutsch@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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@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@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>; lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>>; To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>; <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>>; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; <bc-gnso@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 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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>" <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>" <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>, "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>, "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>> To: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@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@icann.org<mailto: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<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%20Closed%20Ge.... 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> [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<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@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@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> -- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel Google | 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<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6331 - Release Date: 05/17/13
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@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@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@yahoo.com; icann@rodenbaugh.com; Laura Covington; svg@stephanevangelder.com; sarah.b.deutsch@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@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****
****
*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:
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@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.****
****
Mike Rodenbaugh****
RODENBAUGH LAW****
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087****
****
*From:* Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM *To:* mike@rodenbaugh.com; svg@stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' *Cc:* 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com****
408.349.5187****
****
*From: *"icann@rodenbaugh.com" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> *Organization: *Rodenbaugh Law *Reply-To: *"mike@rodenbaugh.com" <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM *To: *"Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> *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****
****
*From:* Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh; svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B *Cc:* Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; 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@yahoo-inc.com****
408.349.5187****
****
*From: *Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> *Reply-To: *Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM *To: *"Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> *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@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 <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@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<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%20Ge... .****
****
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<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<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<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 Version: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6331 - Release Date: 05/17/13* ***
-- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel *Google* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
+1 On May 23, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Andy Abrams <abrams@google.com<mailto:abrams@google.com>> wrote: 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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@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<http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>; lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>>; To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>; <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>>; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; <bc-gnso@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 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<http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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 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@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com" <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> 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@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; 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@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> 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@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<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@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%20Ge.... 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<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 Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752<https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
Mike:<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
Thanks J. Scott. Just curious whether you also asked for their reaction to the fact that search.com, blog.com, etc. have been exclusively owned for many years, and whether they said anything specific about the harm they are concerned about. Most new technology advances and marketing ideas have surprisingly negative reactions from some people; especially from those who didnt come up with the idea or for whatever reason are not in position to specifically benefit from it. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com From: jscottevans@yahoo.com [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:47 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 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: 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@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >; To: <jscottevans@yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> >; <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >; <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >; <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >; <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> >; Cc: <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >; <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; <bc-gnso@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@yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> ; lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> ; svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> ; sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ; bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> <icann@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> >; To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <javascript:return> >; <svg@stephanevangelder.com <javascript:return> >; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <javascript:return> >; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <javascript:return> >; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <javascript:return> >; <bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> ; svg@stephanevangelder.com <javascript:return> ; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> " <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> " <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >, "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >, "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> > To: "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> > Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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@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@icann.org <mailto: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 <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@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@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@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@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>
I can certainly see how your clients might feel that way. I see no harm in getting assurance in place. The good guys can prosper and the bad guys can be weeded out.<br/><br/>J. Scott<br/><br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
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.<br/><br/>J. Scott <br/><br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
I happen to be very familiar with that disposition, which was highly fact-specific and imho quite wrong. The central ruling that TLD strings should not register as marks is contrary to the findings of OHIM and other trademark offices, which routinely register TLD strings as trademarks. Anyway I dont see how the convoluted reasoning in that decision really is pertinent to this discussion, and at least is countered by trademark office practice in the rest of the world. I am curious to hear more about how it raises pertinent concern, and am glad at least (at last) we might discuss the substance of this issue. If the BC is going to say something about it, then members need to come to an informed consensus, based on evidence rather than unspecified and unsupported competitive concerns. The BCs focus is on the domain name industry and how it affects all businesses. We should not be picking sides in fights among competitors over industry keywords and trademarks. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com From: jscottevans@yahoo.com [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 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 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: <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com < <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com>; To: < <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> jscottevans@yahoo.com>; < <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com>; < <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com>; < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com>; < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>; Cc: < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; < <mailto: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 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: <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> jscottevans@yahoo.com [ <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM To: <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com; <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com; <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com; <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com Cc: <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com; <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org; <mailto: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 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: <javascript:return> icann@rodenbaugh.com < <javascript:return> icann@rodenbaugh.com>; To: 'Laura Covington' < <javascript:return> lhc@yahoo-inc.com>; < <javascript:return> svg@stephanevangelder.com>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' < <javascript:return> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' < <javascript:return> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; 'Steve DelBianco' < <javascript:return> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; < <javascript:return> 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 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 [ <javascript:return> mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM To: <javascript:return> mike@rodenbaugh.com; <javascript:return> svg@stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; <javascript:return> bc-gnso@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. <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: " <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com" < <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: " <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> mike@rodenbaugh.com" < <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> mike@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." < <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, 'Steve DelBianco' < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 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> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [ <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; <mailto: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 Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your question? Pre-existing trademark? Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh < <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh < <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." < <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 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 < <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> lhc@yahoo-inc.com> To: " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: " <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com" < <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> svg@stephanevangelder.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" < <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper < <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, " <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso@icann.org" < <mailto: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 <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@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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [ <mailto: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: <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@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; <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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: <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso@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: <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> 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>
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 <http://www.rnapartners.com> Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jscottevans@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 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 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@rodenbaugh.com <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; To: <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; <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 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@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: 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@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> <icann@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> >; To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <javascript:return> >; <svg@stephanevangelder.com <javascript:return> >; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <javascript:return> >; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <javascript:return> >; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <javascript:return> >; <bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> ; svg@stephanevangelder.com <javascript:return> ; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com" <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> 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> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; 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@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> 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@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 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@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 <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@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@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 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@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. 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@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 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>
Ron, Sarah, Anyone can see a non-exhaustive list of TLDs I am publicly assisting with, by searching my name here: https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus Other commenters then should describe their interest in this topic and more importantly any relevant actual information they have that might support their conclusory opinions about likely harm. For example, it is known that Verizon is a prominent member of a trade association that has filed a community objection against a so-called closed generic TLD application. So why does Sarah not disclose that, and more importantly, why does she not share any evidence or argument that was submitted with that objection? 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 Ron Andruff Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:45 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs 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@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jscottevans@yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> ; icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> ; lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> ; svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> ; sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ; bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >; To: <jscottevans@yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> >; <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >; <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >; <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >; <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> >; Cc: <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >; <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; <bc-gnso@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@yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> ; lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> ; svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> ; sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ; bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> <icann@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> >; To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <javascript:return> >; <svg@stephanevangelder.com <javascript:return> >; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <javascript:return> >; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <javascript:return> >; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <javascript:return> >; <bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> ; svg@stephanevangelder.com <javascript:return> ; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> " <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> " <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >, "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >, "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> > To: "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> > Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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@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@icann.org <mailto: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 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@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@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@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@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>
USTelecom and CTIA filed community objections against .phone and .mobile. This should be public information. I was not interested in engaging in specific arguments with you about the harms from these or other closed applications without first knowing who you actually represent. I strongly support Elisa's sensible suggestion that everyone in the BC declare their interests. Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Deputy General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com From: icann@rodenbaugh.com [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 06:39 PM To: 'Ron Andruff' <randruff@rnapartners.com>; 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 Ron, Sarah, Anyone can see a non-exhaustive list of TLDs I am publicly assisting with, by searching my name here: https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus Other commenters then should describe their interest in this topic – and more importantly any relevant actual information they have that might support their conclusory opinions about likely harm. For example, it is known that Verizon is a prominent member of a trade association that has filed a community objection against a so-called closed generic TLD application. So why does Sarah not disclose that, and more importantly, why does she not share any evidence or argument that was submitted with that objection? 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 Ron Andruff Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:45 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs 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@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>; icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>; lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>>; To: <jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>>; <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>>; <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>; <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>; <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>>; Cc: <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>; <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; <bc-gnso@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 From: jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>; lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com<javascript:return> <icann@rodenbaugh.com<javascript:return>>; To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<javascript:return>>; <svg@stephanevangelder.com<javascript:return>>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<javascript:return>>; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<javascript:return>>; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<javascript:return>>; <bc-gnso@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 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<javascript:return>] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com<javascript:return>; svg@stephanevangelder.com<javascript:return>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>" <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>" <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>, "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>, "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>> To: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@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@icann.org<mailto: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<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%20Closed%20Ge.... 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> [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<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@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@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>
Yahoo! Is an applicant, for .yahoo and .flickr, both of which ad explained as closed .brands. Sent from my iPad On May 23, 2013, at 6:06 PM, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> wrote: USTelecom and CTIA filed community objections against .phone and .mobile. This should be public information. I was not interested in engaging in specific arguments with you about the harms from these or other closed applications without first knowing who you actually represent. I strongly support Elisa's sensible suggestion that everyone in the BC declare their interests. Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Deputy General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> From: icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 06:39 PM To: 'Ron Andruff' <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>>; bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> <bc-gnso@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 Ron, Sarah, Anyone can see a non-exhaustive list of TLDs I am publicly assisting with, by searching my name here: https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus Other commenters then should describe their interest in this topic – and more importantly any relevant actual information they have that might support their conclusory opinions about likely harm. For example, it is known that Verizon is a prominent member of a trade association that has filed a community objection against a so-called closed generic TLD application. So why does Sarah not disclose that, and more importantly, why does she not share any evidence or argument that was submitted with that objection? 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 Ron Andruff Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:45 PM To: bc-gnso@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, 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@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>; icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>; lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>>; To: <jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>>; <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>>; <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>; <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>; <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>>; Cc: <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>; <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; <bc-gnso@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 From: jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>; lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com<javascript:return> <icann@rodenbaugh.com<javascript:return>>; To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<javascript:return>>; <svg@stephanevangelder.com<javascript:return>>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<javascript:return>>; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<javascript:return>>; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<javascript:return>>; <bc-gnso@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 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<javascript:return>] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com<javascript:return>; svg@stephanevangelder.com<javascript:return>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>" <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>" <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>, "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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 From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>>, "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com>> To: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>" <svg@stephanevangelder.com<mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@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@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@icann.org<mailto: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<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%20Closed%20Ge.... 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> [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<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@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@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>
Ron, Sarah, Anyone can see a list of TLDs I am publicly assisting with, by searching my name here: https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus Other commenters then should describe their interest in this topic and more importantly any relevant actual information they have that might support their conclusory opinions about likely harm. For example, it is known that Verizon is a prominent member of a trade association that has filed a community objection against a so-called closed generic TLD application. So why does Sarah not disclose that, and more importantly, why does she not share any evidence or argument that was submitted with that objection? 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 Ron Andruff Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:45 PM To: bc-gnso@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, 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@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jscottevans@yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> ; icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> ; lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> ; svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> ; sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ; bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >; To: <jscottevans@yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> >; <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >; <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >; <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >; <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> >; Cc: <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >; <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; <bc-gnso@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@yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> ; lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> ; svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> ; sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ; bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> <icann@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> >; To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <javascript:return> >; <svg@stephanevangelder.com <javascript:return> >; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <javascript:return> >; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <javascript:return> >; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <javascript:return> >; <bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> ; svg@stephanevangelder.com <javascript:return> ; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> " <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> " <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >, "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>
Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >, "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> > To: "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg@stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> > Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@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@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@icann.org <mailto: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 <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@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@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@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@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>
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@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. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jscottevans@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 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
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@rodenbaugh.com <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; To: <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; <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 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@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:
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@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.
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@rodenbaugh.com; svg@stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187
From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com" <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> 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@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; 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@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187
From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> 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@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 LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/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%20Ge....
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>
Very well said, Stéphane. We need to find a way to put an end to these discussions which only serve to fracture the group and detract from the issues. How do we do this - updated SOIs, which then anyone can refer to at their leisure if they really feel the need to? Best, Caroline Greer Regulatory and Public Affairs Manager ETNO -----Original Message----- From: stephvg@gmail.com Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 12:33:20 To: Ron Andruff<randruff@rnapartners.com> Cc: <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@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. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jscottevans@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 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
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@rodenbaugh.com <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; To: <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; <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 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@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:
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@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.
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@rodenbaugh.com; svg@stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187
From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com" <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> 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@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; 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@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187
From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> 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@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 LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/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%20Ge....
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>
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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of stephvg@gmail.com Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:33 AM To: Ron Andruff Cc: 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@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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jscottevans@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 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 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@rodenbaugh.com <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; To: <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; <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 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@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: 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@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> <icann@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> >; To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc@yahoo-inc.com <javascript:return> >; <svg@stephanevangelder.com <javascript:return> >; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com <javascript:return> >; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com <javascript:return> >; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <javascript:return> >; <bc-gnso@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@rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> ; svg@stephanevangelder.com <javascript:return> ; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com" <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> 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/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; 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@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> 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@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 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@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 <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@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@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 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@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. 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@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 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>
Dear BC Members, Firstly, we would like to thank everyone for this discussion that has been quite interesting to follow. Sometimes a not so comforting dialogue also serves to put some light in issues that otherwise are not discussed at all. Regarding closed generics, we support the edits proposed by Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans and Sarah Deutsch. We would like to add to these discussions the following viewpoint from a developing country organization and also in support of Phil Corwin´s arguments and others in the same line of analysis: In our region ICANN is mostly perceived by those who are lucky enough to know what ICANN is - and what it does-, as an American organization that only serves american commercial/trademark interests (you can replace by "developed world" interests...) . This is the simplified version of the ideas that are in most people's minds, including of course, relevant stakeholders. If we take a simple look at the current contracted parties, as well as the current new gTLDs applications, and where they come from, these perceptions might seem quite reasonable from a developing country viewpoint observer that does not know too much about ICANN processes, and who only reads results. Having said this, we support these edits and we add to the analysis being shared this other dimension in the sense that if ICANN wants to actually be a real global multistakeholder organization we, as business users, should be very carefull in every aspect that will make this organization look like supporting the idea of participating in the creation of any monopoly to US/EU companies (or delegating geographical names of developing countries regions to US companies), particularly when the perception around the globe is that the whole new gTLDs program has left behind some of the regions in which the use of the Internet is growing so rapidly. We understand that closed generics can bring innovation in some cases, and we also understand that this is not a black and white situation and that many different business models are behing these applications. We are only concerned about giving the right message to businesses/civil society/governments worldwide on what ICANN does and why is important that we will have this multistakeholder model in place. In this sense is that we expect BC members to be sensitive in this closed generics issue and recommend all necesarry meassures needed to defend the public interest, as well as consumers, innovation, competition and businesses from other regions. All of this in order to defend ICANN¨s model above all, and help this entity become a *real* global multistakeholder organization. Gabi & Celia Latin American e-Commerce Institute (eInstituto) Ps. We also clarify that we do not advise or counsel any new gTLD applicant. 2013/5/24 Mari Jo Keukelaar <mj@johnberryhill.com>
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 Steve’s 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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *stephvg@gmail.com *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 6:33 AM *To:* Ron Andruff *Cc:* 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@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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *jscottevans@yahoo.com *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM *To:* icann@rodenbaugh.com; 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****
****
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@rodenbaugh.com <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; *To: *<jscottevans@yahoo.com>; <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 *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****
****
*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:
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@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.****
****
Mike Rodenbaugh****
RODENBAUGH LAW****
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087****
****
*From:* Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM *To:* mike@rodenbaugh.com; svg@stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' *Cc:* 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com****
408.349.5187****
****
*From: *"icann@rodenbaugh.com" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> *Organization: *Rodenbaugh Law *Reply-To: *"mike@rodenbaugh.com" <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM *To: *"Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> *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****
****
*From:* Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh; svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B *Cc:* Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; 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@yahoo-inc.com****
408.349.5187****
****
*From: *Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> *Reply-To: *Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM *To: *"Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> *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@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 <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@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%20Ge... .****
****
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<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<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<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>****
****
****
****
****
** **
-- *Dra. Gabriela Szlak * Abogada & Mediadora en Estudio ROSZ Directora Regional en eInstituto Consultora en Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías www.estudiorosz.com.ar www.einstituto.org <http://www.einstituto.com.ar/> www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar <http://www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar/> *Skype:* gabrielaszlak *Twitter: @*GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.
Thanks for the feedback MJ, it's helpful. 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 LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Le 24 mai 2013 à 17:06, "Mari Jo Keukelaar" <mj@johnberryhill.com> a écrit :
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 Steve’s 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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of stephvg@gmail.com Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:33 AM To: Ron Andruff Cc: 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@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. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jscottevans@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 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
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@rodenbaugh.com <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; To: <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; <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 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@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:
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@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.
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@rodenbaugh.com; svg@stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187
From: "icann@rodenbaugh.com" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike@rodenbaugh.com" <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> 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@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; 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@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187
From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> 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@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 LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/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%20Ge....
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>
Dear Steve, Much thanks to you and everyone else who has contributed to this evolving document. We've taken another pass at the latest iteration, and we're generally supportive of the direction that this comment is heading. We just had a couple of additional comments that we are hoping you can take into account as you put together the final draft for the BC's consideration: - Second paragraph under "Safeguards Applicable to All New gTLDs": we support your original statement regarding the safeguards that are already required of registrars under the final 2013 RAA. We would not support effectively absolving registrars of their responsibilities by having the safeguards simply shifted over to registries if the registrar fails to act. - "Safeguards Applicable to All New gTLDs": To the extent new safeguards are implemented for all new gTLDs, we respectfully believe there is merit to discussing a PDP in order to apply such safeguards to all gTLDs. As set forth in this section, we agree that wide discrepancies in implementation of safeguards are not ideal for registrants and Internet users - we believe that this statement should apply to gTLDs generally, not simply to new gTLDs. - "Safeguards 6, 7 and 8 Applicable to Category 1 TLDs": We've thought about this section further, and we think that Marilyn's suggestion makes sense, that instead of having the onus be on ICANN to come up with a list, the onus should be on the applicants themselves to be responsible for determining whether their TLDs fall in sensitive/regulated areas. Accordingly, we support Marilyn's edits in this section. Best, Andy On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:05 AM, <stephvg@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the feedback MJ, it's helpful.
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 24 mai 2013 à 17:06, "Mari Jo Keukelaar" <mj@johnberryhill.com> a écrit :
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 Steve’s 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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *stephvg@gmail.com *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 6:33 AM *To:* Ron Andruff *Cc:* 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@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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *jscottevans@yahoo.com *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM *To:* icann@rodenbaugh.com; 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**** **** 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@rodenbaugh.com <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; *To: *<jscottevans@yahoo.com>; <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 *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@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:
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@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.**** **** 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@rodenbaugh.com; svg@stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' *Cc:* 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso@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@yahoo-inc.com**** 408.349.5187**** **** *From: *"icann@rodenbaugh.com" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> *Organization: *Rodenbaugh Law *Reply-To: *"mike@rodenbaugh.com" <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM *To: *"Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> *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@yahoo-inc.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh; svg@stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B *Cc:* Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; 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@yahoo-inc.com**** 408.349.5187**** **** *From: *Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> *Reply-To: *Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM *To: *"Yahoo! Inc." <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>, "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> *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@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 <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@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%20Ge... .**** **** 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<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<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<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 *Google* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
Dear all, As we are soon closing the final comments on the GAC Advice, I gave the document (which I hope is the latest iteration) one more read and noticed some redundancy and conflicting statements on 'applicable law' as referenced several times throughout the BC response. The attached edits are an attempt to harmonize that language in a more uniform approach. I would also like to note that I support the edits proposed by Sarah et al with regard to closed generics that is also found in this iteration of the BC response. With respect to one of Andy's comments (email from yesterday, Tuesday) to wit: * "Safeguards Applicable to All New gTLDs": To the extent new safeguards are implemented for all new gTLDs, we respectfully believe there is merit to discussing a PDP in order to apply such safeguards to all gTLDs. As set forth in this section, we agree that wide discrepancies in implementation of safeguards are not ideal for registrants and Internet users - we believe that this statement should apply to gTLDs generally, not simply to new gTLDs. Asking the community for a PDP related to GAC Advice on safeguards - at this late stage in the game - holds the potential to throw the whole gTLD program into disarray. While I agree in principle that safeguards should apply to all gTLDs, I also agree that all gTLDs should all be thick registries. We all know where that PDP went. .COM remains a thin registry. In my view, such a call would put the safeguards in standstill and the BC would effectively be seen as poking the GAC in the eye. While I believe that many in the BC agree that all gTLDs should be operating on the same basic principles, the timing for this is just not right at the moment. Hope this helps. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA <http://www.rnapartners.com> Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:58 PM To: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs 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%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@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 <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en .htm> ) 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
On the 22-May BC member call we discussed final changes to the BC comment draft, to address whether registrars would be obligated to sign an updated RAA. Anjali Hansen and Elisa Cooper updated the draft with this paragraph (on page 2): Section 5.3 -- “Right to Substitute Updated Agreement” -- provides for the possibility that ICANN will enter into a revised “form Registrar accreditation agreement” into which a registrar could “elect” to enter. The procedure for updating the RAA appears to be on a different track from the amendment process and the BC requests more information on this process and wishes to understand the repercussions of having some registrars elect to enter into a new agreement while others might elect to stay with the current accreditation agreement. Please do your final review by 30-May-2013 so that we can submit to ICANN. Any objections or edits should be sent as Reply to All. Thanks again to Anjali Hansen, Elisa Cooper, Susan Kawaguchi, and others for work on this draft. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:45 AM To: "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Cc: "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org>> Subject: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) ICANN has posted the proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) for public comment. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm>) Anjali Hansen admirably volunteered to draft BC comments. Several BC members provided input, including Ron Andruff, Bill Smith, Susan Kawaguchi, Zahid Jamil, and Elisa Cooper. We held a conference call on this topic on 2-May where many others provided ideas. (call minutes<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC+Members...> and Transcript<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/BC+MAY+02+2013.pdf...> ) Still, Anjali shows several pending questions in the attached draft. We need further help from BC members with direct experience dealing with registrars and privacy/proxy providers. 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 28-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 2:54 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Notes from Monday 8-April Beijing session on new RAA ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA (registrar Accreditation Agreement). The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA. On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendmen...>) The notes below may be helpful for volunteers Anjali Hansen and Zahid Jamil, who volunteered last week to draft BC comments on the new RAA. Law enforcement items were first priority for negotiation. ICANN says the LEA items are agreed by registrars, so ICANN added a dozen “new asks”, incl: - EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, - obligations for registrars using Resellers, - greater compliance tools, incl provision that “pattern or practice of cybersquatting” is grounds for termination ) Made progress on privacy /proxy services (P/P) since Toronto. Temporary P/P specification while ICANN develops accreditation program. In response to a compliance question, Samantha said the P/P Spec sets high level principles that are actually easy to enforce. At my request, Susan Kawaguchi is drafting BC comment on just this specification since she has significant experience with P/P issues. I asked about delay to the P/P accreditation in light of the Expert Group on Directory Services. Samantha said that Registrars truly want ICANN to do a P/P accreditation program so it would apply to all P/P providers – not just those affiliated with Registrars who have to sign the RAA. RAA will be a model document, so its not subject to negotiation with each registrar (except for bilateral amendments). So negotiations won’t be a bottleneck for getting registrars on-board. I asked whether the RAA needed exceptions for registrars created just to service a dot-brand gTLD. (single registrant, single-user) Such as transition on termination; Rights to data; transfers, etc. Staff and BC members could not come up with concerns that would call for exceptions. Public comment would be valuable in these areas: Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars. Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?) Penalties for inaccurate data Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries Unilateral amendment by ICANN. See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr Ron Andruff asked if the next iteration of the RAA will be posted for public comment. Answer was not definitive, so I asked Ron to draft a couple paragraphs of rationale for BC comments.
Steve, Elisa and Anjali, Thanks for this work. SVGC supports this redraft. Best, Stéphane Envoyé de mon iPhone4 Le 29 mai 2013 à 04:26, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> a écrit :
On the 22-May BC member call we discussed final changes to the BC comment draft, to address whether registrars would be obligated to sign an updated RAA.
Anjali Hansen and Elisa Cooper updated the draft with this paragraph (on page 2):
Section 5.3 -- “Right to Substitute Updated Agreement” -- provides for the possibility that ICANN will enter into a revised “form Registrar accreditation agreement” into which a registrar could “elect” to enter. The procedure for updating the RAA appears to be on a different track from the amendment process and the BC requests more information on this process and wishes to understand the repercussions of having some registrars elect to enter into a new agreement while others might elect to stay with the current accreditation agreement.
Please do your final review by 30-May-2013 so that we can submit to ICANN. Any objections or edits should be sent as Reply to All.
Thanks again to Anjali Hansen, Elisa Cooper, Susan Kawaguchi, and others for work on this draft.
--Steve
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:45 AM To: "bc-gnso@icann.org" <bc-gnso@icann.org> Cc: "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)
ICANN has posted the proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) for public comment. (link)
Anjali Hansen admirably volunteered to draft BC comments. Several BC members provided input, including Ron Andruff, Bill Smith, Susan Kawaguchi, Zahid Jamil, and Elisa Cooper.
We held a conference call on this topic on 2-May where many others provided ideas. (call minutes and Transcript )
Still, Anjali shows several pending questions in the attached draft. We need further help from BC members with direct experience dealing with registrars and privacy/proxy providers.
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 28-May-2013.
Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 2:54 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Notes from Monday 8-April Beijing session on new RAA
ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA (registrar Accreditation Agreement).
The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA. On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process (link)
The notes below may be helpful for volunteers Anjali Hansen and Zahid Jamil, who volunteered last week to draft BC comments on the new RAA.
Law enforcement items were first priority for negotiation. ICANN says the LEA items are agreed by registrars, so ICANN added a dozen “new asks”, incl: - EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, - obligations for registrars using Resellers, - greater compliance tools, incl provision that “pattern or practice of cybersquatting” is grounds for termination )
Made progress on privacy /proxy services (P/P) since Toronto. Temporary P/P specification while ICANN develops accreditation program. In response to a compliance question, Samantha said the P/P Spec sets high level principles that are actually easy to enforce. At my request, Susan Kawaguchi is drafting BC comment on just this specification since she has significant experience with P/P issues.
I asked about delay to the P/P accreditation in light of the Expert Group on Directory Services. Samantha said that Registrars truly want ICANN to do a P/P accreditation program so it would apply to all P/P providers – not just those affiliated with Registrars who have to sign the RAA.
RAA will be a model document, so its not subject to negotiation with each registrar (except for bilateral amendments). So negotiations won’t be a bottleneck for getting registrars on-board.
I asked whether the RAA needed exceptions for registrars created just to service a dot-brand gTLD. (single registrant, single-user) Such as transition on termination; Rights to data; transfers, etc. Staff and BC members could not come up with concerns that would call for exceptions.
Public comment would be valuable in these areas: Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars. Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?) Penalties for inaccurate data Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries Unilateral amendment by ICANN. See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr
Ron Andruff asked if the next iteration of the RAA will be posted for public comment. Answer was not definitive, so I asked Ron to draft a couple paragraphs of rationale for BC comments.
<BC Comment on final RAA draft 5-28-2013.docx>
Thanks to the drafters for their hard work! RNA Partners supports this final document. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA <http://www.rnapartners.com> Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:27 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Cc: Hansen, Anjali Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) On the 22-May BC member call we discussed final changes to the BC comment draft, to address whether registrars would be obligated to sign an updated RAA. Anjali Hansen and Elisa Cooper updated the draft with this paragraph (on page 2): Section 5.3 -- "Right to Substitute Updated Agreement" -- provides for the possibility that ICANN will enter into a revised "form Registrar accreditation agreement" into which a registrar could "elect" to enter. The procedure for updating the RAA appears to be on a different track from the amendment process and the BC requests more information on this process and wishes to understand the repercussions of having some registrars elect to enter into a new agreement while others might elect to stay with the current accreditation agreement. Please do your final review by 30-May-2013 so that we can submit to ICANN. Any objections or edits should be sent as Reply to All. Thanks again to Anjali Hansen, Elisa Cooper, Susan Kawaguchi, and others for work on this draft. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:45 AM To: "bc-gnso@icann.org" <bc-gnso@icann.org> Cc: "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) ICANN has posted the proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) for public comment. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm> ) Anjali Hansen admirably volunteered to draft BC comments. Several BC members provided input, including Ron Andruff, Bill Smith, Susan Kawaguchi, Zahid Jamil, and Elisa Cooper. We held a conference call on this topic on 2-May where many others provided ideas. (call <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC+Member s+call+MAY+02+2013.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1368100389000%20> minutes and Transcript <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/BC+MAY+02+2013.pd f?version=1&modificationDate=1368100411000> ) Still, Anjali shows several pending questions in the attached draft. We need further help from BC members with direct experience dealing with registrars and privacy/proxy providers. 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 28-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 2:54 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Notes from Monday 8-April Beijing session on new RAA ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA (registrar Accreditation Agreement). The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA. On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process (link <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendme nt-process-02apr13-en.pdf> ) The notes below may be helpful for volunteers Anjali Hansen and Zahid Jamil, who volunteered last week to draft BC comments on the new RAA. Law enforcement items were first priority for negotiation. ICANN says the LEA items are agreed by registrars, so ICANN added a dozen "new asks", incl: - EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, - obligations for registrars using Resellers, - greater compliance tools, incl provision that "pattern or practice of cybersquatting" is grounds for termination ) Made progress on privacy /proxy services (P/P) since Toronto. Temporary P/P specification while ICANN develops accreditation program. In response to a compliance question, Samantha said the P/P Spec sets high level principles that are actually easy to enforce. At my request, Susan Kawaguchi is drafting BC comment on just this specification since she has significant experience with P/P issues. I asked about delay to the P/P accreditation in light of the Expert Group on Directory Services. Samantha said that Registrars truly want ICANN to do a P/P accreditation program so it would apply to all P/P providers - not just those affiliated with Registrars who have to sign the RAA. RAA will be a model document, so its not subject to negotiation with each registrar (except for bilateral amendments). So negotiations won't be a bottleneck for getting registrars on-board. I asked whether the RAA needed exceptions for registrars created just to service a dot-brand gTLD. (single registrant, single-user) Such as transition on termination; Rights to data; transfers, etc. Staff and BC members could not come up with concerns that would call for exceptions. Public comment would be valuable in these areas: Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars. Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?) Penalties for inaccurate data Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries Unilateral amendment by ICANN. See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr Ron Andruff asked if the next iteration of the RAA will be posted for public comment. Answer was not definitive, so I asked Ron to draft a couple paragraphs of rationale for BC comments.
Thank you, Steve et al, for the draft, which I support. Angie Graves On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>wrote:
** **
Thanks to the drafters for their hard work!****
** **
RNA Partners supports this final document.****
** **
Kind regards,****
** **
RA****
** **
Ronald N. Andruff****
RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com>** ------------------------------
*From:* owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve DelBianco *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:27 PM *To:* bc-gnso@icann.org *Cc:* Hansen, Anjali *Subject:* [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)****
** **
On the 22-May BC member call we discussed final changes to the BC comment draft, to address whether registrars would be obligated to sign an updated RAA. ****
** **
Anjali Hansen and Elisa Cooper updated the draft with this paragraph (on page 2):****
** **
Section 5.3 -- “Right to Substitute Updated Agreement” -- provides for the possibility that ICANN will enter into a revised “form Registrar accreditation agreement” into which a registrar could “elect” to enter. The procedure for updating the RAA appears to be on a different track from the amendment process and the BC requests more information on this process and wishes to understand the repercussions of having some registrars elect to enter into a new agreement while others might elect to stay with the current accreditation agreement. ****
****
Please do your final review by 30-May-2013 so that we can submit to ICANN. Any objections or edits should be sent as Reply to All. ****
** **
Thanks again to Anjali Hansen, Elisa Cooper, Susan Kawaguchi, and others for work on this draft.****
** **
--Steve****
** **
*From: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> *Date: *Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:45 AM *To: *"bc-gnso@icann.org" <bc-gnso@icann.org> *Cc: *"Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org> *Subject: *FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)****
** **
ICANN has posted the proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) for public comment. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm> ) ****
** **
Anjali Hansen admirably volunteered to draft BC comments. Several BC members provided input, including Ron Andruff, Bill Smith, Susan Kawaguchi, Zahid Jamil, and Elisa Cooper. ****
** **
We held a conference call on this topic on 2-May where many others provided ideas. (call minutes<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC+Members...> and Transcript<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/BC+MAY+02+2013.pdf...> )****
** **
Still, Anjali shows several pending questions in the attached draft. We need further help from BC members with direct experience dealing with registrars and privacy/proxy providers.****
** **
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 28-May-2013.****
** **
Steve DelBianco****
Vice chair for policy coordination****
Business Constituency****
** **
** ******
*From:* owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] *On Behalf Of *Steve DelBianco *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 2:54 AM *To:* 'bc - GNSO list' *Subject:* [bc-gnso] Notes from Monday 8-April ****Beijing**** session on new RAA********
** ******
ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA (registrar Accreditation Agreement).********
** ******
The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA. On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendmen...> )********
** ******
The notes below may be helpful for volunteers Anjali Hansen and Zahid Jamil, who volunteered last week to draft BC comments on the new RAA.**** ****
** ******
Law enforcement items were first priority for negotiation. ICANN says the LEA items are agreed by registrars, so ICANN added a dozen “new asks”, incl: ********
- EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, ********
- obligations for registrars using Resellers, ********
- greater compliance tools, incl provision that “pattern or practice of cybersquatting” is grounds for termination )********
** ******
Made progress on privacy /proxy services (P/P) since ****Toronto****. Temporary P/P specification while ICANN develops accreditation program. In response to a compliance question, Samantha said the P/P Spec sets high level principles that are actually easy to enforce. At my request, Susan Kawaguchi is drafting BC comment on just this specification since she has significant experience with P/P issues.********
** ******
I asked about delay to the P/P accreditation in light of the Expert Group on Directory Services. Samantha said that Registrars truly want ICANN to do a P/P accreditation program so it would apply to all P/P providers – not just those affiliated with Registrars who have to sign the RAA.********
** ******
RAA will be a model document, so its not subject to negotiation with each registrar (except for bilateral amendments). So negotiations won’t be a bottleneck for getting registrars on-board.********
** ******
I asked whether the RAA needed exceptions for registrars created just to service a dot-brand gTLD. (single registrant, single-user) Such as transition on termination; Rights to data; transfers, etc. Staff and BC members could not come up with concerns that would call for exceptions.*** *****
** ******
Public comment would be valuable in these areas: ********
Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars.*** *****
Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?)********
Penalties for inaccurate data********
Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries********
Unilateral amendment by ICANN. See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr********
** ******
Ron Andruff asked if the next iteration of the RAA will be posted for public comment. Answer was not definitive, so I asked Ron to draft a couple paragraphs of rationale for BC comments. ********
** ******
+1 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@andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. De: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Angie Graves Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de mayo de 2013 18:16 Para: Ron Andruff CC: Steve DelBianco; Bc GNSO list; Hansen, Anjali Asunto: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) Thank you, Steve et al, for the draft, which I support. Angie Graves On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote: Thanks to the drafters for their hard work! RNA Partners supports this final document. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com> _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:27 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Cc: Hansen, Anjali Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) On the 22-May BC member call we discussed final changes to the BC comment draft, to address whether registrars would be obligated to sign an updated RAA. Anjali Hansen and Elisa Cooper updated the draft with this paragraph (on page 2): Section 5.3 -- Right to Substitute Updated Agreement -- provides for the possibility that ICANN will enter into a revised form Registrar accreditation agreement into which a registrar could elect to enter. The procedure for updating the RAA appears to be on a different track from the amendment process and the BC requests more information on this process and wishes to understand the repercussions of having some registrars elect to enter into a new agreement while others might elect to stay with the current accreditation agreement. Please do your final review by 30-May-2013 so that we can submit to ICANN. Any objections or edits should be sent as Reply to All. Thanks again to Anjali Hansen, Elisa Cooper, Susan Kawaguchi, and others for work on this draft. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:45 AM To: "bc-gnso@icann.org" <bc-gnso@icann.org> Cc: "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) ICANN has posted the proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) for public comment. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm> ) Anjali Hansen admirably volunteered to draft BC comments. Several BC members provided input, including Ron Andruff, Bill Smith, Susan Kawaguchi, Zahid Jamil, and Elisa Cooper. We held a conference call on this topic on 2-May where many others provided ideas. (call minutes <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC+Member s+call+MAY+02+2013.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1368100389000%20> and Transcript <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/BC+MAY+02+2013.pd f?version=1&modificationDate=1368100411000> ) Still, Anjali shows several pending questions in the attached draft. We need further help from BC members with direct experience dealing with registrars and privacy/proxy providers. 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 28-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 2:54 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Notes from Monday 8-April Beijing session on new RAA ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA (registrar Accreditation Agreement). The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA. On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process (link <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendme nt-process-02apr13-en.pdf> ) The notes below may be helpful for volunteers Anjali Hansen and Zahid Jamil, who volunteered last week to draft BC comments on the new RAA. Law enforcement items were first priority for negotiation. ICANN says the LEA items are agreed by registrars, so ICANN added a dozen new asks, incl: - EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, - obligations for registrars using Resellers, - greater compliance tools, incl provision that pattern or practice of cybersquatting is grounds for termination ) Made progress on privacy /proxy services (P/P) since Toronto. Temporary P/P specification while ICANN develops accreditation program. In response to a compliance question, Samantha said the P/P Spec sets high level principles that are actually easy to enforce. At my request, Susan Kawaguchi is drafting BC comment on just this specification since she has significant experience with P/P issues. I asked about delay to the P/P accreditation in light of the Expert Group on Directory Services. Samantha said that Registrars truly want ICANN to do a P/P accreditation program so it would apply to all P/P providers not just those affiliated with Registrars who have to sign the RAA. RAA will be a model document, so its not subject to negotiation with each registrar (except for bilateral amendments). So negotiations wont be a bottleneck for getting registrars on-board. I asked whether the RAA needed exceptions for registrars created just to service a dot-brand gTLD. (single registrant, single-user) Such as transition on termination; Rights to data; transfers, etc. Staff and BC members could not come up with concerns that would call for exceptions. Public comment would be valuable in these areas: Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars. Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?) Penalties for inaccurate data Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries Unilateral amendment by ICANN. See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr Ron Andruff asked if the next iteration of the RAA will be posted for public comment. Answer was not definitive, so I asked Ron to draft a couple paragraphs of rationale for BC comments.
No comments from AIM, except to join in the thanks to all who have worked so hard to prepare this. Kind regards Marie From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Chaplow Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 18:27 To: 'Angie Graves'; 'Ron Andruff' Cc: 'Steve DelBianco'; 'Bc GNSO list'; 'Hansen, Anjali' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) +1 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@andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. De: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Angie Graves Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de mayo de 2013 18:16 Para: Ron Andruff CC: Steve DelBianco; Bc GNSO list; Hansen, Anjali Asunto: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) Thank you, Steve et al, for the draft, which I support. Angie Graves On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote: Thanks to the drafters for their hard work! RNA Partners supports this final document. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com> _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:27 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Cc: Hansen, Anjali Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) On the 22-May BC member call we discussed final changes to the BC comment draft, to address whether registrars would be obligated to sign an updated RAA. Anjali Hansen and Elisa Cooper updated the draft with this paragraph (on page 2): Section 5.3 -- “Right to Substitute Updated Agreement” -- provides for the possibility that ICANN will enter into a revised “form Registrar accreditation agreement” into which a registrar could “elect” to enter. The procedure for updating the RAA appears to be on a different track from the amendment process and the BC requests more information on this process and wishes to understand the repercussions of having some registrars elect to enter into a new agreement while others might elect to stay with the current accreditation agreement. Please do your final review by 30-May-2013 so that we can submit to ICANN. Any objections or edits should be sent as Reply to All. Thanks again to Anjali Hansen, Elisa Cooper, Susan Kawaguchi, and others for work on this draft. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:45 AM To: "bc-gnso@icann.org" <bc-gnso@icann.org> Cc: "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) ICANN has posted the proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) for public comment. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm> ) Anjali Hansen admirably volunteered to draft BC comments. Several BC members provided input, including Ron Andruff, Bill Smith, Susan Kawaguchi, Zahid Jamil, and Elisa Cooper. We held a conference call on this topic on 2-May where many others provided ideas. (call minutes <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC+Members...> and Transcript <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/BC+MAY+02+2013.pdf...> ) Still, Anjali shows several pending questions in the attached draft. We need further help from BC members with direct experience dealing with registrars and privacy/proxy providers. 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 28-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 2:54 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Notes from Monday 8-April Beijing session on new RAA ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA (registrar Accreditation Agreement). The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA. On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process (link <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendmen...> ) The notes below may be helpful for volunteers Anjali Hansen and Zahid Jamil, who volunteered last week to draft BC comments on the new RAA. Law enforcement items were first priority for negotiation. ICANN says the LEA items are agreed by registrars, so ICANN added a dozen “new asks”, incl: - EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, - obligations for registrars using Resellers, - greater compliance tools, incl provision that “pattern or practice of cybersquatting” is grounds for termination ) Made progress on privacy /proxy services (P/P) since Toronto. Temporary P/P specification while ICANN develops accreditation program. In response to a compliance question, Samantha said the P/P Spec sets high level principles that are actually easy to enforce. At my request, Susan Kawaguchi is drafting BC comment on just this specification since she has significant experience with P/P issues. I asked about delay to the P/P accreditation in light of the Expert Group on Directory Services. Samantha said that Registrars truly want ICANN to do a P/P accreditation program so it would apply to all P/P providers – not just those affiliated with Registrars who have to sign the RAA. RAA will be a model document, so its not subject to negotiation with each registrar (except for bilateral amendments). So negotiations won’t be a bottleneck for getting registrars on-board. I asked whether the RAA needed exceptions for registrars created just to service a dot-brand gTLD. (single registrant, single-user) Such as transition on termination; Rights to data; transfers, etc. Staff and BC members could not come up with concerns that would call for exceptions. Public comment would be valuable in these areas: Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars. Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?) Penalties for inaccurate data Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries Unilateral amendment by ICANN. See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr Ron Andruff asked if the next iteration of the RAA will be posted for public comment. Answer was not definitive, so I asked Ron to draft a couple paragraphs of rationale for BC comments.
+1 to Marie's statement. Thanks to all for your work on this. Best, Andy On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be>wrote:
No comments from AIM, except to join in the thanks to all who have worked so hard to prepare this.****
Kind regards****
Marie****
** **
*From:* owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris Chaplow *Sent:* mercredi 29 mai 2013 18:27 *To:* 'Angie Graves'; 'Ron Andruff' *Cc:* 'Steve DelBianco'; 'Bc GNSO list'; 'Hansen, Anjali' *Subject:* RE: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)****
** **
+1****
** **
*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* <chris@andalucia.com>* *Web: *www.andalucia.com* <http://www.andalucia.com/> *Information about Andalucia, Spain.*****
** **
*De:* owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>] *En nombre de *Angie Graves *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de mayo de 2013 18:16 *Para:* Ron Andruff *CC:* Steve DelBianco; Bc GNSO list; Hansen, Anjali *Asunto:* Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)****
** **
Thank you, Steve et al, for the draft, which I support.****
** **
** **
Angie Graves****
** **
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote:****
Thanks to the drafters for their hard work!****
****
RNA Partners supports this final document.****
****
Kind regards,****
****
RA****
****
Ronald N. Andruff****
RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com>**** ------------------------------
*From:* owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve DelBianco *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:27 PM *To:* bc-gnso@icann.org *Cc:* Hansen, Anjali *Subject:* [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)****
****
On the 22-May BC member call we discussed final changes to the BC comment draft, to address whether registrars would be obligated to sign an updated RAA. ****
****
Anjali Hansen and Elisa Cooper updated the draft with this paragraph (on page 2):****
****
Section 5.3 -- “Right to Substitute Updated Agreement” -- provides for the possibility that ICANN will enter into a revised “form Registrar accreditation agreement” into which a registrar could “elect” to enter. The procedure for updating the RAA appears to be on a different track from the amendment process and the BC requests more information on this process and wishes to understand the repercussions of having some registrars elect to enter into a new agreement while others might elect to stay with the current accreditation agreement. ****
****
Please do your final review by 30-May-2013 so that we can submit to ICANN. Any objections or edits should be sent as Reply to All. ****
****
Thanks again to Anjali Hansen, Elisa Cooper, Susan Kawaguchi, and others for work on this draft.****
****
--Steve****
****
*From: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> *Date: *Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:45 AM *To: *"bc-gnso@icann.org" <bc-gnso@icann.org> *Cc: *"Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org> *Subject: *FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)****
****
ICANN has posted the proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) for public comment. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm> ) ****
****
Anjali Hansen admirably volunteered to draft BC comments. Several BC members provided input, including Ron Andruff, Bill Smith, Susan Kawaguchi, Zahid Jamil, and Elisa Cooper. ****
****
We held a conference call on this topic on 2-May where many others provided ideas. (call minutes<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC+Members...> and Transcript<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/BC+MAY+02+2013.pdf...> )****
****
Still, Anjali shows several pending questions in the attached draft. We need further help from BC members with direct experience dealing with registrars and privacy/proxy providers.****
****
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 28-May-2013.****
****
Steve DelBianco****
Vice chair for policy coordination****
Business Constituency****
****
****
*From:* owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] *On Behalf Of *Steve DelBianco *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 2:54 AM *To:* 'bc - GNSO list' *Subject:* [bc-gnso] Notes from Monday 8-April Beijing session on new RAA* ***
****
ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA (registrar Accreditation Agreement).****
****
The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA. On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendmen...> )****
****
The notes below may be helpful for volunteers Anjali Hansen and Zahid Jamil, who volunteered last week to draft BC comments on the new RAA.****
****
Law enforcement items were first priority for negotiation. ICANN says the LEA items are agreed by registrars, so ICANN added a dozen “new asks”, incl: ****
- EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, ****
- obligations for registrars using Resellers, ****
- greater compliance tools, incl provision that “pattern or practice of cybersquatting” is grounds for termination )****
****
Made progress on privacy /proxy services (P/P) since Toronto. Temporary P/P specification while ICANN develops accreditation program. In response to a compliance question, Samantha said the P/P Spec sets high level principles that are actually easy to enforce. At my request, Susan Kawaguchi is drafting BC comment on just this specification since she has significant experience with P/P issues.****
****
I asked about delay to the P/P accreditation in light of the Expert Group on Directory Services. Samantha said that Registrars truly want ICANN to do a P/P accreditation program so it would apply to all P/P providers – not just those affiliated with Registrars who have to sign the RAA.****
****
RAA will be a model document, so its not subject to negotiation with each registrar (except for bilateral amendments). So negotiations won’t be a bottleneck for getting registrars on-board.****
****
I asked whether the RAA needed exceptions for registrars created just to service a dot-brand gTLD. (single registrant, single-user) Such as transition on termination; Rights to data; transfers, etc. Staff and BC members could not come up with concerns that would call for exceptions.*** *
****
Public comment would be valuable in these areas: ****
Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars.****
Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?)****
Penalties for inaccurate data****
Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries****
Unilateral amendment by ICANN. See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr****
****
Ron Andruff asked if the next iteration of the RAA will be posted for public comment. Answer was not definitive, so I asked Ron to draft a couple paragraphs of rationale for BC comments. ****
****
** **
-- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel *Google* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
+1 and echoing thanks. As a newcomer to the group, please forgive me for stating the obvious, but -- I do want to flag that there are aspects of what we are asking for which we should anticipate, in the absence of automated means to accomplish, will be viewed as overly burdensome and onerous (and which may actually be, at the very least, challenging), such as the annual re-verification of contact information and confirming contact information by both email and phone. To be clear, I absolutely support our request for these things; I just think we should also be thinking about compromises we can live with. I guess in the context of ICANN, one always has to be thinking about compromise? Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Andy Abrams <abrams@google.com<mailto:abrams@google.com>> Date: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:45 AM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> Cc: Chris Chaplow <chris@andalucia.com<mailto:chris@andalucia.com>>, Angie Graves <angie@webgroup.com<mailto:angie@webgroup.com>>, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Bc GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>>, "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) +1 to Marie's statement. Thanks to all for your work on this. Best, Andy On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> wrote: No comments from AIM, except to join in the thanks to all who have worked so hard to prepare this. Kind regards Marie 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 Chris Chaplow Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 18:27 To: 'Angie Graves'; 'Ron Andruff' Cc: 'Steve DelBianco'; 'Bc GNSO list'; 'Hansen, Anjali' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) +1 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<mailto:chris@andalucia.com> Web: www.andalucia.com<http://www.andalucia.com/> Information about Andalucia, Spain. De:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Angie Graves Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de mayo de 2013 18:16 Para: Ron Andruff CC: Steve DelBianco; Bc GNSO list; Hansen, Anjali Asunto: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) Thank you, Steve et al, for the draft, which I support. Angie Graves On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> wrote: Thanks to the drafters for their hard work! RNA Partners supports this final document. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc.<http://www.rnapartners.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 Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:27 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Cc: Hansen, Anjali Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) On the 22-May BC member call we discussed final changes to the BC comment draft, to address whether registrars would be obligated to sign an updated RAA. Anjali Hansen and Elisa Cooper updated the draft with this paragraph (on page 2): Section 5.3 -- “Right to Substitute Updated Agreement” -- provides for the possibility that ICANN will enter into a revised “form Registrar accreditation agreement” into which a registrar could “elect” to enter. The procedure for updating the RAA appears to be on a different track from the amendment process and the BC requests more information on this process and wishes to understand the repercussions of having some registrars elect to enter into a new agreement while others might elect to stay with the current accreditation agreement. Please do your final review by 30-May-2013 so that we can submit to ICANN. Any objections or edits should be sent as Reply to All. Thanks again to Anjali Hansen, Elisa Cooper, Susan Kawaguchi, and others for work on this draft. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:45 AM To: "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Cc: "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org>> Subject: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) ICANN has posted the proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) for public comment. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm>) Anjali Hansen admirably volunteered to draft BC comments. Several BC members provided input, including Ron Andruff, Bill Smith, Susan Kawaguchi, Zahid Jamil, and Elisa Cooper. We held a conference call on this topic on 2-May where many others provided ideas. (call minutes<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC+Members...> and Transcript<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/BC+MAY+02+2013.pdf...> ) Still, Anjali shows several pending questions in the attached draft. We need further help from BC members with direct experience dealing with registrars and privacy/proxy providers. 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 28-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 2:54 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Notes from Monday 8-April Beijing session on new RAA ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA (registrar Accreditation Agreement). The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA. On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendmen...>) The notes below may be helpful for volunteers Anjali Hansen and Zahid Jamil, who volunteered last week to draft BC comments on the new RAA. Law enforcement items were first priority for negotiation. ICANN says the LEA items are agreed by registrars, so ICANN added a dozen “new asks”, incl: - EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, - obligations for registrars using Resellers, - greater compliance tools, incl provision that “pattern or practice of cybersquatting” is grounds for termination ) Made progress on privacy /proxy services (P/P) since Toronto. Temporary P/P specification while ICANN develops accreditation program. In response to a compliance question, Samantha said the P/P Spec sets high level principles that are actually easy to enforce. At my request, Susan Kawaguchi is drafting BC comment on just this specification since she has significant experience with P/P issues. I asked about delay to the P/P accreditation in light of the Expert Group on Directory Services. Samantha said that Registrars truly want ICANN to do a P/P accreditation program so it would apply to all P/P providers – not just those affiliated with Registrars who have to sign the RAA. RAA will be a model document, so its not subject to negotiation with each registrar (except for bilateral amendments). So negotiations won’t be a bottleneck for getting registrars on-board. I asked whether the RAA needed exceptions for registrars created just to service a dot-brand gTLD. (single registrant, single-user) Such as transition on termination; Rights to data; transfers, etc. Staff and BC members could not come up with concerns that would call for exceptions. Public comment would be valuable in these areas: Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars. Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?) Penalties for inaccurate data Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries Unilateral amendment by ICANN. See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr Ron Andruff asked if the next iteration of the RAA will be posted for public comment. Answer was not definitive, so I asked Ron to draft a couple paragraphs of rationale for BC comments. -- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752<https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
participants (22)
-
Andy Abrams -
Angie Graves -
Caroline Greer -
Chris Chaplow -
Deutsch, Sarah B -
Elisa Cooper -
Gabriela Szlak -
icann＠rodenbaugh.com -
jscottevans＠yahoo.com -
Laura Covington -
Mari Jo Keukelaar -
Marie Pattullo -
Marilyn Cade -
Mike Rodenbaugh
-
Phil Corwin -
Ron Andruff -
Smith, Bill -
stephvg＠gmail.com -
Steve DelBianco -
Stéphane Van Gelder
-
Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting
-
svg＠stephanevangelder.com