<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Thank you for bringing this up, Sam. That does indeed seem like an example of sloppily worded overreach, and obviously at a first glance: ignores multiple meanings of terms; ignores the trademark law doctrine of categories of use (ie would let Apple computers object to people marketing fruit); and ignores free expression concerns entirely. All sadly very familiar in poorly drafted regulations designed to appease large trademark holders. <div><br></div><div>I think it likely that this would receive support from all of the NCSG.</div><div><br></div><div>David</div><div><br><div><br><div><div><div>On 24 Dec 2014, at 10:48 pm, Sam Lanfranco <<a href="mailto:lanfran@YORKU.CA">lanfran@YORKU.CA</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">David Cake’s reference to "the
interests of IP maximalist trade mark owners" is applicable beyond
what new gTLD operators. NPOC is currently drafting comments for
the European Union and European Parliament where their proposed
(IP maximalist) revision of the <i>European Union Regulation on
the Community Trade Mark and the European Union Directive
Relating to Trade Marks</i> includes the following prohibition:
<br>
<br>
<i>"</i><i>Using the sign as a trade or company name/[...], <b>or
as a domain name, or as a part thereof</b>."</i> (emphasis
added)<br>
<br>
Much of the IP constituency is also firmly opposed to this
wording. The process whereby the European decision will be made is
totally non-transparent, and through treaties may have potential
global impact. <br>
<br>
See: <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/msg01246.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/msg01246.html</a>
for NPOC background.<br>
<br>
Sam L.<br>
<br>
On 23/12/2014 11:07 PM, David Cake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:A61FD11C-6B37-495F-A220-BB1072DAD1FC@difference.com.au" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It is worth noting again that many of the 'Public Interest Commitments' made by new gTLD operators contain clauses and commitments that are probably not in the public interest at all, and that go against consensus policy recommendations. A case in point is many of them bring in the idea of a globally protected trade mark list, which was explicitly rejected as policy, and protects the interests of IP maximalist trade mark owners more than the public. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></body></html>