Important blog post about the ICANN Accountability CCWG

[Sam Lanfranco]

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 /European Union 
Regulation on the Community Trade Mark and the European Union Directive 
Relating to Trade Marks/ includes the following prohibition:

/"//Using the sign as a trade or company name/[...], *or as a domain 
name, or as a part thereof*."/ (emphasis added)

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.

See: http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/msg01246.html for NPOC 
background.

Sam L.

On 23/12/2014 11:07 PM, David Cake wrote:
> 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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141224/4be8aadd/attachment.htm>