<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Yeah, that too (and Amen!).<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/09/2012 4:19 PM, Edward Morris
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALMg_ZTW5OOaCBn-7gZkCYLd-jKQ9s4T5aXJ1Wk7Gk0gHxjwXQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">I
would take exception to the claim that allowing so called
"closed garden" gTLD's at all infringes upon nation states
"entrenched legal processes" for obtaining trademark
protection.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>It's usually brand owners I need to remind of what appears
to be a little recognized fact: domain names are not
trademarks. Notwithstanding the fact that brand owners want us
to treat domain names as trademarks +, that some UDRP
mediators seem to buy this argument, that we're left fighting
attempts to establish extraordinary protection for famous
marks...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Domain names are not trademarks. Nor are they sui generis
i.p. marks. To sign this letter indicates a belief that in
some form they are and will make it a be a bit more difficult
in the futre to coherently fight efforts by brand owners to
further expand their monopoly rights in the domain ecosphere.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The concept of a commons in generic terms may be admirable.
The concept stands alone and needs not and should not be
linked to trademark rights. Regrettably the time to make such
an argument with regards to this round of gTlds is in the
past.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</span><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Kathy
Kleiman <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hi All,<br>
I would like to share with you a letter being circulated by
Michele Neylon, the wonderful Blacknight registrar (and the
only registrar in Ireland). It deals with new gTLDs that
are "closed gardens" -- generic words that some companies
have applied for as new gTLDs and will keep "closed" -- not
open for general second-level domain name registration.
These include some applicants for .BLOG and .CLOUD, among
many others.<br>
<br>
It's a powerful letter with strong free speech/freedom of
expression arguments. Concerns are shared by registries,
registrars and registrants -- and Michele is looking for
Signatories. <br>
<br>
Please take a moment to look at the letter, and let Michele
know if you can sign on (name, organization). Michele is
cc'ed on this email, and can be reached at <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:michele@blacknight.ie"
target="_blank">michele@blacknight.ie</a> <br>
<br>
----- <br>
Here's the full version with current signatories : <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/edit"
target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/edit</a>Here
are two quotes from the <br>
<p><br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Here are two
quotes from the letter: <span
style="vertical-align:baseline;font-variant:normal;font-style:normal;font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal"></span><span
style="vertical-align:baseline;font-variant:normal;font-style:normal;font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal"><br>
"Based on our collective industry experience, we are
of the opinion that the underlying intention of
Section 6 was to allow for the operation of closed
gTLDs only under very defined circumstances. </span><br>
<span
style="vertical-align:baseline;font-variant:normal;font-style:normal;font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal">Specifically,
that closed gTLDs should be reserved for only those
strings in which the applicant possesses established
(i.e., legally recognized) intellectual property
rights, basically brand names. We believe that this
interpretation of Section 6 is inherently logical
especially in view of the discussions that preceded
the opening of gTLDs -- which focused, in very large
part, on expanding choices and opportunities as well
as promoting innovation, for Internet consumers
worldwide."</span><br>
<span
style="vertical-align:baseline;font-variant:normal;font-style:normal;font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal"></span><br>
<span
style="vertical-align:baseline;font-variant:normal;font-style:normal;font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal">"Further,
generic words used in a generic way belong to all
people. It is inherently in the public interest to
allow access to generic new gTLDs to the whole of the
Internet Community, e.g., .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD.
Allowing everyone to register and use second level
domain names of these powerful, generic TLDs is
exactly what we envisioned the New gTLD Program would
do. In contrast, to allow individual Registry
Operators to segregate and close-off common words for
which they do not possess intellectual property rights
in effect allows them to circumvent nation-states’
entrenched legal processes for obtaining legitimate
and recognized trademark protections."</span><br>
</font>----<br>
Best, <br>
Kathy <br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"> </font></span></p>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p>Kathy Kleiman<br>
Internet Counsel, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth<br>
Co-Founder, NCUC<br>
</p>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>