![]() |
Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森) Advocate, Director Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York) | |
|
T SG +65 6532 2577 T US +1 212 999 6180 T IL +972 9 950 7000 F IL +972 9 950 5500 |
Soroker Agmon Nordman Pte Ltd. 133 New Bridge Road, #13-02, 059413 SINGAPORE 8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425 4672408 Herzliya, ISRAEL |
|
This message is confidential. It may also be privileged
or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you
have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it
from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to
anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming
e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of
this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.
|
From: icannlists@winston.com
Sent: 30 April 2017 20:00
To: jmalcolm@eff.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week
|
Thanks Jeremy. I think the problem came up because the TMCH operator has let a few in under an assumption, even though no one can find any guidance in the GNSO Policy, IRT Recommendations, STI Report, Board Resolutions or the AGB supporting the notion. If this group doesn’t affirmatively say “stop that” then presumably the TMCH operator will keep doing it and more GIs will get in. So, unless we are happy with the status quo where the TMCH operator is letting in things no one intended to be let in, I think we have to address the issue.
Even so, there are those on the list who want GIs to be welcome into the TMCH or that a separate GICH be built along with GISunrise and GIClaims. While these things are not necessary off-charter, such activities could easily add a year or more to this PDP. That is not my favorite outcome.
Best,
Paul
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 8:22 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week
On 29/4/17 6:32 am, Jonathan Agmon wrote:
The USPTO is in the US. Perhaps the EPO's and many other Trademark Offices' positions is also relevant. My point, which I feel I am not getting through, is that the US positron is not the only one. Nearly every country on the planet has some laws relating to GI protection and I am arguing most of them view them as a form of trademarks. I don't see the reason why not to include a registered GI in the TMCH. They are after all trademarks, when registered. Can you help me out here to understand your objection and the reasons for it? If others (non US countries) see GIs as trademarks and allow them to be registered, why exclude them?
Forgive my ignorance, has this discussion happened elsewhere? The proposition that GIs should be recognized alongside trademarks in the DNS is surely a far bigger one than the RPMs working group. Not the kind of thing that we could just slip in as an assumption.
I for one would certainly have a lot more to say about the merits of recognizing GIs in the DNS, if that were our discussion. But I doubt it's a discussion for this working group.
--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm@eff.org
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122