On 1/26/13 1:41 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
it is my considered view that each of the four strings: {amazon, patagonia, nyc, and health} should be allocated only if applicants can be found which meet objective, and feasible criteria.
Dev, You've had an opportunity to add responses the to you email sent to the following: afri-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org, apac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org, euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org, lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org, na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org, and at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org In particular, mine beginning as follows:
it is my considered view that each of the four strings: {amazon, patagonia, nyc, and health} should be allocated only if applicants can be found which meet objective, and feasible criteria.
To one or all of the staff managed sites: https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/{.amazon_OG,.patagonia_OG,.nyc_OG, and .health_OG} Lacking write permissions to each of these URLs, I've not added my responses, but trust that you will do so before the response period expires. If you would like I can send you text with conventional capitalization. While looking for a means to add comments to those already present I came across one I thought worthy of note, I reproduce it in its entirety, without reference to its author, here:
I am ambivalent about the objections to both .amazon and .patagonia.
I understand and acknowledge the claims of the communities to the term, what is at issue is whether they have exclusive claim, I note that the proponents did not see fit to attempt their own geoTLD applications, and there has been no attempt to challenge the current registration of patagonia.com. Had there been a conflict between a geoTLD application and commercial application for the same string, I would actively support the geographic one. But in the absense of a desire by the residents of the patagonia region to request their own TLD I am dis-inclined to impede the application.
First, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the actual issue. I doubt that the standing of At Large requires a determination of whether or not an applicant, which may be identified by string contention, not merely exact or partial string match, possibly in another script than the instant application, or an objector, has "exclusive claim" to the string. Second, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity of a party bringing an objection having, as a predicate condition, submitted any application, let alone an application for the string associated with the instant application. Third, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity of exhaustion of remedies for a legacy registration, under the independent rules for legacy namespaces, adopted when the Corporation was formed and subsequently modified, but never extended to new namespace applications through the numerous drafts of the Applicant's Guidebook, for a registration made a half decade before the Corporation was formed. Fourth, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity of any of predicate act by any third party as a precondition for At Large to exercise its standing to object to any application. With respect I suggest the better course of analysis is to review the record for the grounds for objections, and the standings required of the objectors, here the attempted appropriation of unmistakable regional identifiers by managers of brands intentionally exploited remotely to the identified region, to enhance trademarked merchandise profit margins, with no identifiable benefit to the name originating region, before waiving the standing of At Large based upon some other rational for non-objection. Independent of the above, I suspect that the Corporation's "outreach" expenditures relative to the 2012 gTLD application process in each region is substantially less than its expenditures in the North American region (domicile of record of the .patagonia applicant) or the European region (domicile of record of the .amazon applicant). Also independent of the above, the purpose of trademark protection is the prevention of confusion in the market. The claim that absent the contract to operate a regional identifier as a private commercial mark confusion exists in the market would be difficult to substantiate. However, the confusion in the market resulting in the grant to a private commercial use of a regional identifier is not difficult to anticipate. The first of these two independent observations speaks to the duty of an agency of government (United States), or its delegated agency actor, under tha Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, to make effective, not fictional, notice and comment, prior to rule making. The second of these two independent observations speaks to the duty of a market actor cognizant of trademarks to avoid acts likely to increase confusion in the market. Eric