*** This is intended for SubPro Subteam 2. If it has not reached the right list, could you kindly send me the email address. *** Dear Subteam 2, I’ve been reading the discussion of the last meeting, and want to share some thoughts before the call this week. I hope this helps to inform and share information in this important discussion. 1. “Actual harm” is a purposely impossible standard. Very little requires proof of “actual harm” in the real world – it’s proof of “likelihood of harm” that is the basis of most standards, particularly in trademark law. For example, the test for trademark infringement is a “/likelihood of confusion/.” The test for “imminent danger” is where the danger exists which could “/reasonably be expended to cause death or serious physical harm.” /If I build a swimming pool in my backyard, I don’t have to wait until a child drowns to build the fence – the danger is foreseeable and avoidable – and I must act now. 2. When it comes to a “Likelihood of Harm,” we have tons of evidence of the likelihood of harms of Closed Generics, and a great deal of precedent. A. The protections against monopolization of generic words used in their generic sense date back almost three quarters of a century (1946) in US trademark law and can be recited by every trademark attorney. /"Generic word are the weakest types of 'marks' (and cannot even qualify as 'marks' in the legal sense) and are never registrable or enforceable against third parties. //*Because generic words are the common, everyday name for goods and services and everyone has the right to use such terms to refer to their goods and services, they are not protectable. *//Be aware that if you adopt a generic term to identify your goods or services, you will not be able to prevent others from using it to identify potentially competing products or services."/Basic Facts about Trademarks, USPTO, /https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BasicFacts.pdf [emphasis added]/ *B. *Thus, the US Trademark Office would never allow one milk producer, milk pasteurizer, or milk distributor to monopolize or trademark the word “milk” for its own purposes. Milk for the limited purpose of a line of young children’s clothing, sure, but never to allow Borden Milk Products to monopolize the word “milk” as opposed to Horizon Organic Milk*. * 2)The high standard of the “likelihood of material detriment” WAS met when CTIA – The Wireless Association ®, representing the Mobile Industry, brought it’s Objection against Amazon for monopolize the gTLD planning to own all .MOBILE domain names to solely support its mobile business, and not that of the industry as a whole. /CTIA - The Wireless Association (R) (USA) vs/ Amazon EU S.A.R.L. (Luxembourg), Decision 1-1316-6133/. CTIA did meet the very high and difficult standard of showing that the Closed Generic application of Amazon for .MOBILE and the Panelist found that Amazon’s ==> “/would create a likelihood of material detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted."/ 3)Hundreds of commenters from around the world – a larger and wider spectrum than in any ICANN comment proceeding before – responded to the Board’s call for clarification and understanding of the issues of Closed Generics by stating clearly and precisely the “likelihood of harm” they would suffer if Amazon owned the Internet space of “.BOOK” or Google owned all the domain names of .SEARCH. In the comment period, some of the largest and best known companies in the world explained why Closed Generics were a “restriction of competition to the detriment of consumers.” One was the attorney Martin Broden, an attorney for Inter IKEA Systems B.V. presenting IKEA’s concerns with ICANN: “Preventing others from registering under descriptive gTLDs means restriction of competition to the detriment of consumers. The current proposal is contrary to ICANN’s intention with the launch of new gTLDs, namely to broad the domain name space and to spur competition for the benefit of all.” https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-closed-generic-05feb13/msg00049.html *Others included Microsoft, the McCarthy Institute for Intellectual Property and Technology Law, Spanish Booksellers Federation, Asia Cloud Computing Association, Yves Rocher, Prudential Insurance Company, even the US Postal Service. The eloquent and informative Microsoft letter is attached. * 4) As was noted during the Subteam discussions, dozens of GAC Early Warnings were filed specifically on Closed Generics. The Governments shared with us the basic principles of competition and trademark outlined above. _Overall:_ We made a great compromise in the original round – we allowed .BRANDS to be Closed – defined as the Registry being the sole Registrant and owning all of the domain names. Thus we created the space for experimentation of the brand, and .AWS, among others, is well underway with their models – all of which tie their New gTLD to their products and services. We clarified the policy of the First Round that Generic gTLDs would be open – and that the Registry would sell domain names and service all within its industry or product/service group. You’ll see attorneys and companies long in the ICANN space tell us that this clarification by the ICANN Board was what they thought the rule was all along. Not new policy, but clarified one. They view the ICANN Board's work barring Closed Genrics as clarifying and restating the policy as originally intended – if a New gTLD Registry is not a .BRAND, then the Registry /cannot own all of the second level domains. /No single business can control all of the domain names of its industry. I hope this bit of history and analysis has been helpful to the discussion. I think the world would be happy to revisit these issues, if needed, but that would delay the next round of New gTLDs which none of us want to do. Best, Kathy