Important blog post about the ICANN Accountability CCWG

[Sam Lanfranco]

David,

I will put this on the NCSG table for discussion. It came to NPOC late 
in the game (early December) as a result of dialogue with the IP 
constituency. They are equally concerned about it. I am crafting a 
version of the final statement for NPOC to okay and to be sent to the 
relevant elected and appointed individuals in the EC/EP. There are no 
formal windows for submissions, and -as I said- no transparency in how 
the final decision will be made. I will share the content of that 
statement (as a draft) while NPOC is debating the acceptability of the 
wording. That will be done in the next several days. For now I will make 
a posting to NCSG using what was circulated earlier in NPOC.

Sam

/On 26/12/2014 9:48 PM, David Cake wrote://
/
> /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. /
> /
> /
> /I think it likely that this would receive support from all of the NCSG./
> /
> /
> /David/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141226/3f96e9bb/attachment.htm>