NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Date:
Mon, 13 May 2013 12:31:36 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2280 bytes) , text/html (3849 bytes)

Nothing too startling or new but interesting in terms of how Heather describes what the GAC intended: 
http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/video-gac-advice-10may13-en.htm 

FWIW I agree with Kathy that the AGB is framed sufficiently broadly to allow the GAC to give wide-ranging policy advice to the ICANN Board; that was a specific accommodation to the GAC late in the implementation process (along with the Early Warning and free objection process, IIRC.) That set up a brief discussion among some of us as to the difference between GAC advice rendered in this context and GAC Advice (capital A) vis-a-vis the ICANN Bylaws but it seemed clear that if such advice was given then the Board would pretty much follow what they did during the GAC/trademarks scorecard process - which from the recent announcement by the Board's New gTLD Program Committee it seems like they are. 

Too bad this GAC advice did not, as contemplated, come BEFORE the objection period closed; even worse that it is so tremendously general, broad and vague on the issues it raises, especially as to what the "public interest" means and how far their "non-exhaustive" list of strings identified in the various categories goes. 

I personally think the .patagonia and .amazon point in Milton's current draft is made stronger by their specific inclusion but in deference to the very strong feeling among a large minority of our vocal members am fine with changing that to a less specific phrasing while making it clear that - whether it be trademark law or otherwise - there has to be a recognized legal basis for stopping applications other than "some of us don't like it". If there is no formal legal basis then a broad public interest argument can be made only if the public interest can be clearly identified as one that's so critical as to warrant protection - maybe that can be the community point that others have raised (though that is not one I personally think sufficiently weighty). 

Cheers 
Mary 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php




ATOM RSS1 RSS2