special trademark issues in new gtlds

[Mary Wong]

Just to add that the new group who will be tasked with trying to work out a consensus solution is supposed to include representatives from all GNSO stakeholder groups. As such, its function, mandate and membership will be quite different from the IRT (which the IPC took the lead in forming).
 
The IRT no longer exists as a formal body within ICANN, although I understand that individual members of that team may participate - through their own stakeholder groups - in the GNSO team now being formed; it's possible also that some may contribute public comments in their personal capacities as former IRT members.
 
The Board's request to the GNSO community on this issue (trademark protection and new gTLDs) is a good opportunity for NCUC members to contribute to the discussion that's been raging for some time. We're probably in the final stretch toward new gTLD implementation, with the publication of the new version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG-3), so the resolution of these isssues is vitally important at this stage.
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> Avri Doria <avri at LTU.SE> 10/19/2009 2:32 PM >>>
Hi,

Note this initial group is just to get the ball rolling, I expect/hope  
it will open up to more people during and especially after Seoul.

a.

On 19 Oct 2009, at 14:13, Robin Gross wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> It looks like the new GNSO group to deal with "special trademark  
> issues" (formerly known as "IRT") is getting up and running.  It  
> also looks like each constituency will appoint 2-3 people to serve  
> on this group and that much of its work will be done in Seoul next  
> week.
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07701.html
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07709.html
>
> We should begin to formulate our constituency response as soon as  
> possible.
>
> I understand there are a number of changes in the trademark policies  
> in the DAGv3 from previous versions.   Now it is in the hands of the  
> GNSO members until 14 December to work through the unresolved  
> issues.   This will be an important topic at the GNSO sessions on  
> the weekend, so we should try to have our position formulated before  
> then to the extent possible.  We will spend some time on  
> Constituency Day discussing these issues, but that is too late to be  
> useful for participants in the weekend sessions.
>
> It would be very helpful if those members of the constituency who  
> have reviewed the new DAG v3 could provide the rest of us with some  
> guidance on how NCUC should respond moving forward in light of the  
> Board's letter to the GNSO.
>
> Especially those who would like to represent NCUC in this new GNSO  
> work group, can you please provide us with some understanding of  
> what the issues are that remain and what NCUC's position should be  
> on those issues?
>
> Thank you very much!
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20091020/3eec84c6/attachment.html>