HI Kathy,

I do think it’s important for the WG to understand what Jeff’s position is procedurally on this topic.  It appears to me that Paul is correct that there was no policy against Closed Generics in 2012 and that the Board resolution is limited to the 2012 round.  So if we stick with the “ground rules” of the PDP, it appears that the next round will be “open season” for Closed Generic applications.  This is especially important to consider now that the Working Group has taken a “rough consensus” position (with some of us dissenting)  that going forward, if a string is applied for in the next round, that application will act as a complete bar to applications for the same string in any subsequent round.

 

I would strongly advocate for skipping this topic in the next call and scheduling it for the F2F meeting.

 

Anne

 

 

As we revisit the topic of Closed Generics, I would like to share a few thoughts as a reminder on how this issue (of "generic words") has been dealt with in other forums. This is a long-established issue... 

1) Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, US Trademark Office:

"Generic terms are incapable of functioning as marks denoting source, and are not registrable on the Principal Register under §2(f) or on the Supplemental Register." 807.14(e)(ii)

2) Our own Community Objection process reviewed and raised the same deep concerns for gTLDs in which the applicant (a competitor in a field)

ICC New gTLD Community Objections determination:  "The establishment of unrestricted, exclusive rights to a gTLD that is strongly associated with a certain community or communities, particularly where those communities are, or are likely to be, active in the Internet sphere seems to me inherently detrimental to those communities' interests."  [Note: the "communities" being referred to here are commercial communities.  The issue of a closed .MOBILE was raised by the CTIA which represents the US mobile wireless industry.  1-1316-6133

Best, Kathy