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.
>
>