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. >>>