<div dir="ltr"><div>Napa and Sonoma US wine producers are worried about carpetbaggers (.vin and .wine applicants). So are non US wine producers.<br><br><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/thompson-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/thompson-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf</a><br>
<br>Let's see whether the ICANN law is more relevant than a member of the US Congress well connected with major law committees.<br> .<br>À vôtre santé. Louis.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">- - -<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Erick Iriarte <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eiriarte@alfa-redi.org" target="_blank">eiriarte@alfa-redi.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Dear Milton<div><br></div><div>Do you know the: Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin</div><div><a href="http://www.wipo.int/lisbon/es/" target="_blank">http://www.wipo.int/lisbon/es/</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>And in effect US is not part of this Treaty, but the other countries yes. </div><div><br></div><div>In several free trade agreements from US with other countries, they included geographical and </div>
<div>
<br></div><div>for example</div><div>Peru-USA FTA - 16.2.2. <a href="http://www.acuerdoscomerciales.gob.pe/images/stories/eeuu/ingles/Intellectual_Property_Rights.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.acuerdoscomerciales.gob.pe/images/stories/eeuu/ingles/Intellectual_Property_Rights.pdf</a></div>
<div>"Geographical indications means indications that identify a good as originating in the territory of a Party, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. Any sign or combination of signs, in any form whatsoever, shall be eligible to be a geographical indication"</div>
<div><br></div><div>I suppose included too in TPPA and TAFTA</div><div><br></div><div>So… you are wrong and Christopher is right :)</div><div><br></div><div>Erick</div><div><br></div><br><div><div><div><div class="h5"><blockquote type="cite">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br><div><div>On 28 May 2014, at 21:57, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:inherit;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" lang="EN-US">
<div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Actually the NTIA has it right, Wilkinson is wrong, (and let’s leave Crocker and Chehade off of the cc list ;-)<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">ICANN is a global coordinator; its whole purpose was to avoid having the DNS partitioned into 192 different jurisdictional requirements. If we want ‘local’ laws to regulate DNS let’s eliminate a global root altogether and turn the Internet into the national PTT telephone system. (Oh, it wouldn’t be the internet then, would it?)<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">The EC’s idea that it can impose its parochial GI regulations on a global resource is misguided, and an attempt to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. If they want to enforce their _<i>local</i>_ rules, let them regulate sale or consumption of the TLD registrations _<i>within their own territory</i>_ nothing stops them from doing that, they already have that authority.<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">The Strickling letter is exactly on target when it asserts that the EC, and certain applicants for .WINE are engaged in special protectionist negotiations and that those negotiations do not have the consensus support of the GAC, much less the rest of the community.<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>