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.
>>
|
