Many thanks, Kathy. This is deeply problematic. Thanks very much for the note and reminder of the context. I've supported James in asking for agenda time for this topic. cheers, m On 17 June 2014 13:33, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]> 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]> <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> > Organization: Afilias > To: <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> > > > > All, > > > > FYI and for further discussion / follow-up. > > > > Jonathan > > > > *From:*Megan Bishop [mailto:[log in to unmask] <[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./ > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > <http://www.avast.com/> > > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus > <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active. > >