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

[David Cake]

I have similar concerns. The middle paragraph focusses too much on the one identified problem that we definitely agree is a problem. 

On 10/04/2013, at 3:42 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130410/9c40408a/attachment.html>