I am also VERY concerned about this latest attempt to change GNSO policy and expand trademark privileges even further post hoc.  How many backflips is ICANN supposed to do for the Red Cross?   How much community time and energy is spent on creating special privileges for these special interests.  Just imagine if all this energy and resources could actually be put toward something worthwhile.

Robin

On Jun 17, 2014, at 5:33 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> To NCSG Councilors,
> This is interesting as it expands the Trademark Clearinghouse in ways that it was never intended to be expanded. As you know, the TMCH was a narrow mechanism - to give trademark owners with a clear, registered trademark, a place to put it.
> 
> As these IGO names go into the Trademark Clearinghouse, we (NCSG reps in the GNSO Council) must require them to have some sort of description of their purpose -- something equivalent to the "description of goods and services" of a trademark. Because of these descriptions of goods and services, trademarks are limited, and trademarks such as Delta Faucets, Delta Airlines and future Deltas can co-exist.
> 
> But here it appears we are being asked to protect the IGO acronym in the abstract - some sort of protection of mere letters -- an absolute ownership of characters. But that can't be right - as the WHO (World Health Organization) coexists with The WHO (the rock and roll group).  
> 
> Please remind everyone that the TMCH registrations are a basis for URS proceedings (the ultra-fast uniform rapid suspension of New gTLD domain names).  So without descriptions, the World Health Organization will come to own the string "WHO" with no bounds, no limits, and an almost absolute ability to pull it from anyone else using the string (including other noncommercial organizations sharing these common 3-letter acronyms in completely different areas of operation).
> 
> Even IGOs have bounds and limits - and a clear description of the areas and communities they serve.  This needs to be added to the requirements if these terms are to be added into the TMCH database. 
> 
> What is the deadline here, and how can we work together (Councilors and those in NCSG who helped design (and limit) the TMCH) to help define and further limit this new IGO registration? 
> 
> Best,
> Kathy:
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: 	[council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>> Date: 	Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:11:04 +0100
>> From: 	Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: 	<[log in to unmask]>
>> Organization: 	Afilias
>> To: 	<[log in to unmask]>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> FYI and for further discussion / follow-up.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:*Megan Bishop [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> *Sent:* 16 June 2014 21:09
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Jonathan,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Attached please find a letter from Cherine Chalaby, providing an update
>> on the ongoing work by the NGPC in response to the GNSO policy
>> recommendations regarding Protection of IGO-INGO identifiers.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Megan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Megan Bishop
>> 
>> Board Support Coordinator
>> 
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300
>> 
>> Los Angeles, CA 90094
>> 
>> Mobile: +1-310-795-1894
>> 
>> Direct: +1-310-301-5808
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> /One World. One Internet./
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>  	
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. 			
> 
>