[PC-NCSG] Fwd: proposed text for joint statement of Ncsg & alac

[Avri Doria]

I recommend that we remove the middle paragraph. A joint statement should be about agreement and not get into the disagreements. 

Otherwise it seems like acceptable pablum.

Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

>Folks:
>
>Due to short time, We weren't able to get alac to re-examine it's
>previous adoption of Alan's view that TM+50 is a good thing to do.  But
>he did allow them to make a stmnt on the flawed process of the
>proposal.  So the below text is what he proposes for a joint ncsg-alac
>Stmt on the issue.   We will ask alac to reconsider the substance of
>it's official support for TM+50 however in the coming days.
>
>Thanks,
>Robin
>
>> We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the
>creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new gTLD  
>rights protection mechanisms.  Despite assurances that staff would not
>create or alter community-developed Policy, some aspects of this
>proposal were adopted outside of the appropriate policy development
>processes.
>> 
>> To focus on one aspect of the new mechanisms, our communities are not
>unified on the overall substance of the proposal known as "trademark +
>50" which allows trademark owners to add their trademark plus 50
>derivations of that mark for each trademark identifier into the TMCH.
>However, we are unified on one aspect. Companies that file for
>trademark registrations in many countries may have 50 additional
>strings per trademark per national registration. That would result in
>potentially thousands of additional strings per mark. Our communities
>are unified in that if this new protection should be implemented, it
>must be limited to 50 additional strings per mark without getting
>additional benefit from multiple registrations of the same mark in
>different jurisdictions.
>> 
>> While we appreciate staff?s admission that this particular proposal
>was a policy issue and not an implementation detail, the explanations
>provided for the adoption of the policy that the GNSO Council did not
>support and that the ALAC deemed to require GNSO development have been
>woefully inadequate.  Circumvention of the bottom-up model is a serious
>issue that deserves attention and redress.  We call upon ICANN to
>reverse this trend and respect the community-led bottom-up
>multi-stakeholder policy development process that ICANN claims to
>champion.
>> 
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>PC-NCSG mailing list
>PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130410/63c8738a/attachment.html>