<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Proposed IRT Joint Statement with ALAC</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Dear Kathy,<BR>
<BR>
Great statement – great job. Just a brief addition in the URS (hope it is not too late) - can we also add here that the system further illegitimitizes the process of ADR and what is meant to serve – it is both procedurally and substantively unjust.<BR>
<BR>
Best<BR>
Konstantinos<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 23/06/2009 07:25, "Kathy Kleiman" <<a href="Kathy@KathyKleiman.com">Kathy@KathyKleiman.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Hi All,<BR>
For discussion purposes a little later in our meeting today, here is a DRAFT Joint Statement on the IRT Report between NCUC and ALAC.<BR>
It would be very nice if, at the Board Public Forum on Thursday, we could go up together with ALAC to make a strong joint statement.<BR>
That would make the Board wake up! :-)<BR>
<BR>
Best,<BR>
Kathy<BR>
(below in text and attached in Word)<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
<P ALIGN=CENTER>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><FONT SIZE="2"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>DRAFT<BR>
Joint Statement on the DIRT Report<BR>
>From ALAC and NCUC
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
<P>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><FONT SIZE="2"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> <BR>
<BR>
The At-Large Community, ALAC and the Non-Commercial Users Constituency of ICANN strongly support the creation of new gTLDs. Having said that, the process to move forward with changes to the DAG Guidebook requires the legitimacy of full community participation and full transparency.<BR>
In the case of the IRT Report, we had neither transparency nor openness. The IRT Report and its recommendations harm the interests of domain name Registrants and Internet end users, and consequently we must object to the vast bulk of its recommendations.<BR>
<BR>
To be more specific: <BR>
1. The Globally Protected Marks List – the GPML database- is a matter well beyond ICANN's scope and its core competence. It presumes to be able to resolve an issue that even WIPO wrestles with. Clearly the creation of the GPML, if even possible, would cause enormous complexity. Instead of speeding up the process of creating new gTLDs, it would introduce delays that would last for years. But the creation of this list must take place outside of ICANN.<BR>
2. The GPML takes no consideration of the actual limits of rights and protections allowed to trademarks. In the real world, trademark owners apply for a trademark in a specific class of goods and services, and their use is bound to that class or classes. By protecting a string of letters in all new gTLDs, the GPML would extend trademarks into new gTLDs far beyond the bounds of their class of goods and services, far beyond existing national laws and internationatreaties. <BR>
<BR>
3. We have enormous problems with the Uniform Suspension Service (URS). The URS mechanism subverts conventional UDRP practice as it gives entirely insufficient time for notice to the registrant of the pending dispute. Thus, the registrant is unfairly limited in his/her right of response and the process is missing the fundamental principle of due process.<BR>
<BR>
[ Kathy Note: This paragraph below seems to be somewhat controversial within ALAC. I think we will be dropping it. Don't worry, we'll include the statement in our comments -- if you all agree]<BR>
4. ALAC and NCUC strongly object to the Thick Whois Registry. In mandating such, the IRT Committee did not address any of the privacy issues that arise from moving personal data from many countries with data protection laws, perhaps, to a single country without data protection. Does ICANN really want to be in a position in which it may be violating national laws?<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="2"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>Overall, we wish the result were different. We wish the IRT had delivered a reasonable proposal for the protection of trademarks. But the product delivered is far outside the scope and core competence of ICANN, and outside the bounds of trademark law.<BR>
We can do better; we must do better before we move forward.<BR>
Consequently, NCUC and ALAC stand before this forum together in fundamental opposition to many of the IRT Results.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Signed [for sharing a written cop y of a floor statement with the Board]<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>ALAC NCUC<BR>
<BR>
__________________ __________________<BR>
__________________ __________________<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
-- <BR>
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,<BR>
Lecturer in Law,<BR>
GigaNet Membership Chair,<BR>
University of Strathclyde,<BR>
The Lord Hope Building,<BR>
141 St. James Road,<BR>
Glasgow, G4 0LT,<BR>
UK<BR>
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306<BR>
email: <a href="k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>