If there is so much "community interest," why the "community" didn't apply for the string on the first place ? Case example .RIO
But I agree with you, the key issue here is the "process" given that while for example Patagonia is locally recognized as a region, it is not listed on ANY international standard, but is registered as a trademark not only as an international trademark but also as a national recognized trademark in Argentina.
Then based on what international law you will deprive the applicant for using the name when they followed all the guidelines for the application ?
-Jorge
On May 12, 2013, at 1:45 AM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Is there any way to make the point about international law without
> specifying these two cases per se?
>
> And, is the role of (international) trademark law in these cases really
> pertinent to the disputes? There may be other claims on a string
> (communities of interest) that do not have trademarks relating the string
> because they are not well-defined business corporations per se. I don't
> know that we want to imply any special *privilege* of trademarks above and
> beyond other forms of standing, though I certainly wouldn't want to
> specially *denigrate* them by comparison, either. But other forms of
> standing may not be supported directly by explicit international law, and I
> wouldn't want to imply that those forms of standing were somehow
> "second-class" in the dispute process.
>
> Can we refer to this purely in terms of process, and not in terms of
> substantive detail or outcome? How does a government claim standing to
> represent communities of interest that are distinct from its own national
> institutional standing? And should a government's claim to standing in
> such disputes trump all other claims? I think the point is that each case
> should considered "bottom up" on its own merits, and that a government
> position should not preempt the fact-based evaluation in any *privileged*
> manner.
>
> Dan
>
> PS: As for the use of the word incredible, that sentence and the next could
> be combined into one as follows: "The GAC proposal to make registrars and
> registries authoritative licensing validation entities for 200
> jurisdictions and an innumerable number of sectors and professions is not
> realistically feasible." Is it worth adding anything about "due process"
> here? (That is, R&R's do not have institutional capacity to replace ex
> post judicial due process with any sort of ex ante judgment.)
>
>
> --
> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>
>
>
> At 12:36 AM -0300 5/12/13, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> I have checked with Flavio and others, and we agree with Kathy's
>> proposal. I think Flavio has made clear why we see it as problematic.
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 05/09/2013 10:09 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> As we move towards a common denominator, I support not including
>>> anything in the statement about .amazon and .patagonia (just as Milton
>>> has graciously agreed not to include anything on closed generics).
>>> Best, Kathy
>>>
>>> :
>>>> 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_-B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/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.
>>>
|
