I thought we learned recently that ICANN is not bound by the First Amendment ;-) Am 30.09.2016 um 14:19 schrieb Paul McGrady:
+1
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman *Sent:* Friday, September 30, 2016 5:35 AM *To:* Reg Levy <reg@mmx.co>; Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] "free speech"
I must admit that I am also confused about our discussions on this list about free speech. I still believe the general rule should be that our job is to address actual problems that have arisen for which there is evidence of such a problem. So, if there is evidence that free speech has been stifled by the new RPMs, lets have that evidence pushed forward. But if there are just philosophical or hypothetical arguments, I am confused as to why we are having them.
My fear is that some may be taking this opportunity to re-argue the entire trademark protection mechanisms that we all negotiated in 2009-2012 (and beyond). I don’t believe that is in our remit.
Thanks.
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Reg Levy *Sent:* Thursday, September 29, 2016 5:43 PM *To:* Paul Keating <Paul@law.es <mailto:Paul@law.es>> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] "free speech"
J. Scott said,
Trademark owners should not overreach, true. However, the terms you cite deserve no greater scrutiny than any other dictionary term. The TMCH has been around for approximately 18 months and I have seen no reporting that the marks registered in the TMCH have severely hobbled free expression.
And I agree. The challenge is coming up with a solution that neither allows trademark owners to be taken advantage of nor encourages overreach. “Apple” in all TLDs needn’t be reserved or treated specially, but the TMCH does allow a trademark owner to buy it first. There are some instances where (police.london was a much-touted one) a trademark in conjunction with the TLD means something different enough that it would make no sense to allow the trademark owner first rights. Those are a case-by-case issue.
Are we:
1. looking to modify and/or validate the TMCH? 2. looking to supplement the TMCH with additional protection for trademark rights? 3. expand the TMCH to include non-trademark rights?
We are having a very interesting and far-ranging conversation about free speech and the like, but I’m not clear on the focus that we should be maintaining.
Thanks,
Reg
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -7
On 29 Sep 2016, at 08:46, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es <mailto:Paul@law.es>> wrote:
The term “free speech” itself is a false deity. It is all about the protections afforded to speech. While some jurisdictions may go further than others I think taking J. Scott’s comment to mean “speech is not protected” would be a misrepresentation of the situation.
Aside from “free speech” there is the closely related concept of fair use.
And, finally, of course, trademark protection is limited in scope. It does not act to preclude use of the identical indicator for unrelated goods/services or for purposes which are generic (meaning the thing or its essence) or descriptive (use in describing the thing).
I think it would serve us best to keep in mind the distinctions.
Paul Keating
*From: *<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu <mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>> *Date: *Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:31 PM *To: *Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> *Cc: *"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] "free speech"
That was the misstatement. “Most nations don’t have a US-style First Amendment” would have been true.
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759
*From:*Paul McGrady [mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:29 AM *To:* Rebecca Tushnet *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] "free speech"
Hi Rebecca,
What was the misstatement you are trying to correct? The most related statement that I could find in the Transcript was J. Scott who said “very few jurisdictions in the world have free speech.” I didn’t see anyone who said “Most nations don’t have a US-style First Amendment.” In fact, I didn’t see a single reference to the First Amendment in the transcript.
Regards,
Paul
Paul D. McGrady, Jr.
policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rebecca Tushnet *Sent:* Wednesday, September 28, 2016 12:35 PM *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [gnso-rpm-wg] "free speech"
Just to correct a misstatement on the call earlier: Most nations don’t have a US-style First Amendment. Most nations with a rule of law do, however, recognize freedom of speech in some form, including the right to criticize private companies. As this Wikipedia entry notes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country, implementation can be inconsistent on the ground, but I expect that inconsistent enforcement of trademark rights on the ground doesn’t mean that trademark owners want ICANN to ignore the law on the books; freedom of speech is equally a principle worth honoring. In addition, I don’t know how many countries whose nationals participate in the ICANN process have signed on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes freedom of speech, http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/, but I doubt we want to make policy based on the countries that don’t recognize any freedom of speech at all.
Also, you can’t have it both ways: if domain names can facilitate infringement, which they absolutely can, then they convey meaning; if they convey meaning, they can also facilitate noninfringing conduct or affirmatively protected freedom of speech. It is just as true, or untrue, that a trademark owner can register a different string if it can’t have the one that it wants as it is that a person making fair or otherwise noninfringing use can do so. This is especially so if we’ve given trademark owners the ability to jump the line in many circumstances. Freedom of speech principles may help tell us when preclusion of a domain name to a speaker—whether a trademark owner or a non-owner—is of particular importance. That is, they can help us identify the important false positives (notifications generated in response to domain names that wouldn’t infringe).
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.