[ALAC] GAC, Geographical Indications and TMCH

[Carlton Samuels]

This has come up before and Alan has, as usual,  ably outlined the
distinctive details for the TMCH as not fit to purpose.

In any event, this is a contest we'd be advised taking a backseat here is
in the At-Large ' s best strategic interest.

Unless we have the opportunity to do some horse trading; one man's old nag
is the other fella's sleek Arabian steed.

Carlton
On Jun 24, 2014 9:11 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> Many Geographic names are already on the restricted list for 2nd/3rd level
> registration, but generally, these do not correspond to wine appellations.
>
> Since the TMCH generally only is involved in registrations done at launch
> time and  during the first 90 days of operation, I don't think that this
> would be satisfactory, since my impression is that they are looking for an
> ongoing-for-the-life-of-the-domain. Even if the TMCH were to impact
> registrations for the life of the TLDs (which has a whole set of problems
> associated with it), it is not clear to me if that would be acceptable to
> the objectors to .vin/wine, since it does not prevent registrations but
> just requires the applicant to avow that they are not doing anything that
> violates trademarks (or whatever the reason for being in the TMCH).
>
> So, in my mind, it is an option, but probably not one that would satisfy
> the parts of the wine industry that are objecting to the delegation.
>
> Alan
>
> At 24/06/2014 03:25 AM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> As you are aware, the discussion over .vin and .wine is something that
>> has kept the GAC busy lately. As I understand it, the reason for this
>> discussion is whether .vin and .wine should be delegated or not as they may
>> pose a threat to countries that have an important wine industry.
>>
>> On the session we had with SO/ACs Chairs I didn’t have time to ask this
>> question but anyway I posted it to the AC room chat and wanted to raise it
>> on this list.
>>
>> The question is whether the GAC has considered or not, to ask the TMCH to
>> include geographic indications to their set of intellectual property assets
>> that can be protected through this mechanism rather than continue a
>> discussion that can be endless.
>>
>> I would think that adding GIs to the TMCH structure could solve this
>> problem and let .vin and .wine be delegated properly.
>>
>> What are your thoughts on this?
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>>
>>
>> León
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
>> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>