My participation in the particular case of .patagonia has to do more with
what criteria/process will be used for the evaluation than the string
itself.
For many months after we learned of this application my point was that it
is a clear situation where there is no legal basis to reject the
application right away, so it is one of those instances that fall in a very
grey zone on the guidelines. The applicant has followed everything that is
stated in the guide, probably ignored on purpose that the string represents
a geographical region to bypass the requirement to get support, but in
their favor the same string was approved as a local trademark in the past.
Now the string as is, is not defined in any international standard as a
geographic zone or subdivision, also afaik the name (not the same situation
as amazon) has not been included in any international treaties or laws.
Then the key issue here is what process and based on what criteria the
evaluation will use to determine if the string can go through or not, since
this will set precedent on how future applications will be handled when a
string requested with restricted use falls in a dubious zone that may limit
others to be able to register names on the second level.
The GAC clearly is not helping to clarify and put some "intelligence" in
the process by just argumentation of "because we say so" or forwarding and
supporting documents from organizations that have no real representation of
the users interests.
My .02
-J
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think the letter is good.
>
> As for the amazon and patagonia statement, I think the way it is outlined
> is neutral in the sense to whether they ought to be approved or not - let
> the objections/replies run their course. Perhaps it can be even more
> neutral.
>
> Perhaps adding a lead-in that say something like:
>
> Without taking a position on the objections against .amazon and .patagonia
> which are in the dispute resolution process we criticize the GAC communique
> on this subject because of ...
>
>
> avri
>
>
> On 10 May 2013, at 07:01, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> > We are not commenting on the Amazon or Patagonia applications. We are
> commenting on the GAC advice.
> > I can add a line stating that many organizations from LA oppose the
> applications, but the point about the GAC acting extra-legally _must_ be
> made if we are to be taken seriously as a principled voice.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> >> Flávio Rech Wagner
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:00 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on my rhetorical
> >> excesses
> >>
> >> I haven't seen any statements from civil society organizations from
> >> South America supporting the approval of the .amazon and .patagonia
> >> applications. Exact on the contrary. Civil society in South America is
> >> definitely against the approval of these applications, as you can see,
> >> for example, from the list of organizations signing the document sent by
> >> Carlos Afonso in a previous message. Let's stop assuming that this is
> >> just a matter of governments and "empty political statements".
> >>
> >> In a few cases, governments may reflect the position of the civil
> >> society ...
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Flavio
> >>
> >>
> >>> I've not seen yet any valid argument or study from the Argentinean
> >>> government why .patagonia should not be approved, not that I'm in
> >>> favor but claiming ownership or sovereignty with empty political
> >>> statements IMHO has no weight in the evaluation process and the
> >>> board can disregard the GAC advice.
> >>>
> >>> I agree with Milton that because government X say so is not a solid
> >>> argument to deny an application.
> >>>
> >>> -Jorge
> >>>
> >>> On May 9, 2013, at 4:01 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> While I agree with most of the doc, I do not agree (along with many
> >>>> civil society orgs & movements) with the arguments in the paragraph
> >>>> mentioning .amazon and .patagonia. Please leave these arguments to
> >>>> the commercial interest groups.
> >>>>
> >>>> fraternal regards
> >>>>
> >>>> --c.a.
> >>>>
> >>>> sent from a dumbphone
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9 May 2013, at 14:18, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I agree. These are solid comments and NCSG should endorse them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks very much, Milton, for the difficult work of drafting and
> >>>>> re-drafting to incorporate the views of others.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> Robin
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On May 9, 2013, at 10:49 AM, McTim wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Today in domain incite the writer starts his blog post with:
> >>>>>>> " For the last few weeks I've been attempting to write a
> >>>>>>> sensible analysis of the Governmental Advisory Committee's
> >>>>>>> advice on new gTLDs without resorting to incredulity, hyperbole
> >>>>>>> or sarcasm"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Exactly what I felt when I took on the task!!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So it took him a few weeks to work it out of his system. Can you
> >>>>>>> all forgive me - or perhaps respect me - for taking only one week?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have revised the GAC comments. They are tamer. They eliminated
> >>>>>>> one mistake that Kathy pointed out to me. the bow to division
> >>>>>>> within NCSG regarding closed generics. But they still drive home
> >>>>>>> what are absolutely essential points that MUST be made, and made
> >>>>>>> strongly, in this important comment period. Please take a fresh
> >>>>>>> look.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvh
> >>>>>>> E5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am happy with the re-write in terms of tone and substance.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is important that we make a solid statement about this to the
> >>>>>> Board, as it gives them political "cover" to say no to the GAC.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> McTim
> >>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is.
> >>>>>> A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> >
>
|
