<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
Dear All:<div><br></div><div>Below please find NCUC's draft comments on the IRT Report. </div><div><br></div><div>Thank you to Konstantinos and Kathy for the lion's share of the work in drafting these comments!</div><div><br></div><div>Please send any feedback and suggestions in the next couple of hours because we need to file these today. Send any comments directly to me (and cc Kathy and Konstantinos in case they are still online then). There is no time for major revisions - only minor tweaks to improve the existing text.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you,</div><div>Robin<br><br> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div>---------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br></div><div><!--StartFragment--><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-outline-level:1;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>Noncommercial Users Constituency<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-outline-level:1;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>Submits its <o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b> <o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-outline-level:1;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>COMMENTS ON PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE </b></span><b>IRT FINAL REPORT—<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-outline-level:1;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b>A SUGGESTED ROADMAP FOR MOVING FORWARD<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b> <o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">These are the comments of ICANN’S Non-Commercial User Constituency (NCUC), a group which dates back to ICANN’s founding and has actively and fully participated in all policy-making proceedings at ICANN involving domain names and domain name disputes.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">NCUC has 102 members in 40 different countries, including 37 individuals and 65 organizations as members.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We represent a wide array of noncommercial groups, including human rights organizations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Our members, and those they represent, often risk their lives and their livelihoods to post information about politics, corruption, revolution and the pursuit of free and democratic rights by individuals and organizations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In addition, our members use the Internet, their domain names and their websites to post free and fair critiques of large companies, their products, services and practices to the world for lawful discussion and debate.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">Our members, and those we have worked with over the 10 years of ICANN, are often the target of overbroad trademark claims, abusive cease and desist letters, invalid UDRP filings and a pattern of practices to shut down their speech by challenging their right to the domain names (often well-known, well-linked and well-bookmarked domain names).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To shut down the domain name is to shut down the speech, the competition and the criticisms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is an abuse we call “trademark lawyer abuse,” and in the David v. Goliath battles of small noncommercial organizations and individuals vs. large companies, “trademark lawyer abuse” is, unfortunately, rampant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>(See the website <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org">www.chillingeffects.org</a> for thousands of examples of such abuse documented by the public.)<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">It became very clear in the NCUC/IRT Team meeting in Sydney, that the issue of “trademark lawyer abuse” had not been addressed by the IRT Team – and was, rightly, considered a valid and necessary counterweight to the domain name registrant abuse upon which so much of the IRT Report is premised.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Since the IRT Report was drafted behind closed doors by a group of trademark attorneys who represent the world’s largest trademark owners and without any representation of domain name registrants, it comes as no surprise that the report is one-sided and unbalanced in its treatment of issues.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">We renew our claims that the IRT process was imbalanced and unfair, and repeat our concerns below. At the same time, we recognize that even the worst processes sometimes move forward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><b><i>Should the IRT process continue to move forward, the NCUC has strong recommendations to ensure that a similar imbalance of views, experiences and concerns does not continue to the next level of use of these materials.<o:p></o:p></i></b></p> <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><br clear="ALL" style="mso-special-character:line-break; page-break-before:always"> </span><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .75in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b>I.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></b><b>Formation of the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) took place in a non-inclusive and unrepresentative manner.<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">The first official document informing the GNSO community of the formation of the IRT was in the form of an email, sent by the Intellectual Property Constituency on March 11, 2009.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It provided a mere 36 hours for groups to express interest in adding members to the IPC-formed IRT committee.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Timely responses by the ALAC to add well-known attorney Bret Fausett and by the Internet Commerce Association to add its president were rejected. <b><i>Clearly, the views of registrants – be it noncommercial, individual or commercial- were considered irrelevant. <o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><br> We note that such a focus on the needs of only one constituency, the IPC, is undemocratic and against the traditional values of diversity and multi-stakeholderism within ICANN.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Noticeable absent were those who represent human rights coalitions, free speech and freedom of expression organizations and privacy groups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Also not invited to participate were representatives of domain name registrants – <i>those who will actually be impacted by these new rules</i><span style="font-style:normal">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>These organizations and individuals would have brought to the table valuable – critical – information about the balance of trademark law and its limits as regards fair use, free speech and freedom of expression. </span></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-outline-level:1;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The IRT Team Attempts to Rewrite GNSO Developed Policy<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">When the Intellectual Property Rights Constituency did not get everything it wanted in the GNSO policy development process it created the IRT to re-open and re-negotiate the issue to its liking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The GNSO carefully considered the issue of protecting trademark rights in new top-level domains and included GNSO negotiated solutions in its final recommendations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In particular, the GNSO Working Group “Protecting the Rights of Others” Working Group was tasked with this objective of protecting trademarks <<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pro-wg/">http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pro-wg/</a>>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This working group was not able to come to agreement and support the proposals of the Intellectual Property Constituency that are now re-opened by the IRT Team.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Re-opening these issues and throwing out the negotiated consensus that was reached between all stakeholders undermines ICANN’s claim of “bottom-up” policy-making that involves all stakeholders equally.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-outline-level:1;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">B.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The IRT Team Operated without Transparency</p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">Contrary to the practices on which ICANN committees are based, the IRT Team provided no information about its meetings, and no proceedings of the development of its work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This ‘Masonic’ approach is worrying, puts a big question mark to the way substantive policy issues have been approached, and sets a precedent for a one-sided approach to policy which ICANN should not follow going forward.</p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:14.25pt;text-align:justify; mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p> <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><br clear="ALL" style="page-break-before:always"> </span><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:14.25pt;text-align:justify; mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">C.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>ICANN Provided Travel Support and Expenditures for the World’s Largest<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:14.25pt;text-align:justify; mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Companies and IPC-Members</p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">It is the tradition of the GNSO that individual constituencies pay the cost of their representatives to participate in the ICANN process. At great cost and difficulty, the NCUC has sent its members to participate for years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We continue to raise an objection to ICANN’s singling out support for a single constituency in the GNSO in the negotiation of this issue, a constituency comprising the world’s largest and wealthiest companies<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Asking Internet users to foot the bill for the creation and sale of this one-sided policy proposal which benefits a single interest (large brand owners) to the detriment of all others simply isn’t fair.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><b><i>Rather than an IRT Presentation in NYC, London and Hong Kong, the public forum should provide a balanced presentation of “pro and con” views of the IRT Report – with attorneys experienced in trademark law, and its limits – with support from ICANN. <o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><b><i> <o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b> <o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>II.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>There is no need to go forward with the IRT Report. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The IRT Report has been roundly rejected by large segments of the ICANN community, including NCUC, ALAC, and a significant number of members of the Business and Registrar Constituencies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Even a member of the IPC rose at the Sydeny Public Forum to exclaim that trademark infringement is not “one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse” (!).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Further, GAC members, including those of France and Brazil are questioning the IRT Report findings, and the IRT Team composition and process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops: .25in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Notably, in all 3 straw polls taken by Bruce Tonkin during the Sydney IRT Report consultation, the stated consensus from the community was <i>against</i></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> the proposals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The overwhelming number of comments during the Public Forum in Sydney raised objections and concerns to the IRT Report, and many more commentators were not able to take the floor to raise their objections because time had been called before they could reach the microphone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The overwhelming number of public comments submitted thus far in the public comment period weigh against this one-sided proposal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If the general public and non-commercial users are to have any say in policy development at ICANN, the IRT Report should be rejected since it has failed to provide a solution acceptable to the majority of Internet users.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><i>The IRT Report need not go forward. It can stop here.</i></b></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> Clearly, the IRT Team did not fulfil its mandate – to provide to the ICANN Board and the ICANN Committee a report that is reasonable, balanced and fair.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To that end, the ICANN Board is free to thank the group for its work and continue forward with the rollout of new gTLDs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.75in;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b> <o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.75in;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b> <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><b><br clear="ALL" style="page-break-before: always"> </b></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.75in;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>III.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Should the IRT/IPC process go forward, ICANN needs to ensure that the mistakes are corrected – the IRT process needs balance and equity among those who review the comments, and incorporate future changes into proposals.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.75in;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The UDRP process of 10 years ago gives us a baseline and a precedent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>At the Santiago meeting in 1999, instead of adoption of the UDRP, it was clear that deep divisions continued over the UDRP recommendations and procedures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Esther Dyson, then Chairman of the ICANN Board, created a diverse committee tasked with creating fair and balanced UDRP wording.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The task was difficult, but the group was diverse with now well-known representatives of the NCUC, IPC and Registrars Constituencies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The result included the then-new UDRP Section 4(c), rights of registrants, for much greater balance, fairness and equity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">For the sake of new gTLDs and the ICANN process, should the IRT process move forward, ICANN should:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2;tab-stops:list 1.0in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">A.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Make the public consultations a debate or at least a briefing by two sides, not one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The IRT report, and its now well-known pitfalls, should be fairly and openly presented to those gathered in the Public Consultations meetings. This presentation should be by both IRT Committee members and those representing views excluded from the IRT Report.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Attorneys for domain name registrants should be given the floor, prior to the opening of the public comment period, to present PowerPoint slides and widely-agreed upon points of concern and dissent with the report.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><i>ICANN should, of course, provide travel support to both sides in the interest of fairness and fair presentation. <o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2;tab-stops:list 1.0in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">B.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Create a “Comments-Review Team” with attorneys from registrant groups only, or both registrant and trademark groups<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">As the UDRP process showed, we can only move forward if the reviewing group is fair and balanced. Given the IRT Committee’s history of rejecting any comments to the IRT Draft Report with which it did not agree (see IRT Final Report), it is incumbent on ICANN to bring into the process those registrant attorneys with years of experience in dealing with “trademark lawyer abuse.” We cannot allow any new processes to be gamed, misused and abused by trademark attorneys – and the opportunity for such misuse is clear within many of the proposals now within the IRT Report.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The best way to limit abuse – by both sides—is to have both sides represented in the discussion. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><i>IV.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Implementation of the IRT recommendation falls outside ICANN’s technical mandate and scope.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">ICANN was originally created as a technical entity responsible for the day-to-day management of the DNS.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The IRT Report does not fall within day-to-day management activities; instead, it is nothing but clear policy-making, which may produce future regulatory repercussions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We would like to draw the attention to Esther Dyson – first chairwoman of the ICANN Board – who stated: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><i>“The White Paper articulates no Internet Governance role for ICANN,<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><i>and the Initial Board shares that (negative) view.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><i>Therefore, ICANN does not ‘aspire to address’ any Internet Governance issues;<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><i>in effect<b>, it governs the plumbing, not the people </b></i></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><i>[emphasis added].<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><i>It has a very limited mandate to administer certain (largely technical)<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><i>aspects of the Internet infrastructure in general and<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><i>the Domain Name System in particular</i></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The IRT recommendations contradict this structural restraint.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It seeks to exercise some form of Internet “Regulatory Governance” by governing certain aspects of individual behaviour on the Internet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>NCUC does not oppose trademark rights or their legitimate protection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We oppose the re-tasking of ICANN to expand trademark rights in ways trademark law itself does not support.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Trademark rights are governed by laws, treaties, legislatures, parliaments and other democratic bodies that are appropriately authorized to protect those rights; they evolve incrementally, through judicial reasoning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>ICANN should not set the precedent of inviting the introduction of new governance policies that cannot be obtained through legitimate means of existing legal regimes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">These NCUC Comments on Procedural Aspects of the IRT Final Report are complemented by a set of NCUC Comments on Substantive Aspects of the IRT Final Report, separately submitted in this proceeding.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">________________________________________________________________________________________________ <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><!--StartFragment--><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>Noncommercial Users Constituency<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>Submits its<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b> <o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>COMMENTS ON SUBSTANTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>IN THE </b></span><b>IRT FINAL REPORT—<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b> <o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b>A CALL FOR RIGHTS OF REGISTRANTS TO BE PROTECTED,<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b>FOR “TRADEMARK LAWYER ABUSE” TO BE RECOGNIZED,<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b>AND FOR IRT/IPC/TRADEMARK PROTECTION PROPOSALS TO<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b>FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE AND MISSION OF ICANN.<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">These are the comments of ICANN’S Non-Commercial User Constituency (NCUC), a group which dates back to ICANN’s founding and has actively and fully participated in all policy-making proceedings at ICANN involving domain names and domain name disputes before now.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.75in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo21;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><b>I.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></b><b><u>A Few Opening Thoughts<o:p></o:p></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b><u> <o:p></o:p></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><b>Sydney IRT and Public Consultations<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><b> <o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">ICANN has now heard loudly and clearly from the ICANN community.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Throughout the microphones of the Sydney meetings, in forums loud and small, the opinions echoed: the IRT Report is not reasonable, is not balanced, is not fair and is not just.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In short, the IRT Report is not a workable solution.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">In the Sydney IRT Consultation, the ceiling rang with a significant number of heartfelt and deeply founded, concerns of noncommercial registrants, individual registrants, commercial registrants, registrars and those speaking for Internet users.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Comment after comment from NCUC, ALAC, Registrars and even IP attorneys speaking in opposition to the IRT were heard (with many more deep concerns expressed in the hallways). <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">All 3 straw polls, conducted by Bruce Tonkin, on the major pillars of the IRT Report in a main IRT presentation (Wed. afternoon) showed that not a single major pillar of the report had the support of even a bare majority of the community in the room.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In all 3 polls, there were more hands raised in opposition to the ITR Report proposals than in favor.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">To the extent that the IRT Team was called upon to create something reasonable and balanced, it has not done so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Its work should conclude without aftermath.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To the extent that its work continues in some form, then this work must be done in a manner reflecting the diversity of the GNSO and ICANN, and with an expertise and concern for the abuse of domain name registrants as well as the policing of trademarks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Such a new group must fairly and in a balanced manner represent all constituencies in the GNSO and operate in the traditional ICANN open and transparent manner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>(Please see the NCUC Procedural Comments on the IRT Final Report, separately submitted.)<o:p></o:p></p> <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><br clear="ALL" style="mso-special-character:line-break; page-break-before:always"> </span><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>Our Goals<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">These Substantive Comments are devoted to NCUC’s severe, substantive, legal and judicial concerns with the proposals of the IRT Report.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We will share how the substantive IRT recommendations take ICANN far afield of its technical scope and mission, create substantive new trademark rights (beyond existing law), gut existing safeguards and fair procedures for domain name registrants in the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), and create an unbounded situation for abuse by trademark lawyers and those representing trademark owners.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">We address our significant concerns with all major aspects of the IRT Report below.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>Two Opening Observations<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b> <o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>A.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Domain name registrants are not bad.</b></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To read the characterizations of the IRT Report, and the comments of the committee, domain name registrants are inherently bad.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We are all guilty until proven innocent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We merit no fair or actual notice of trademark infringement allegations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We are not entitled to just or fair time to respond.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Following legal due process safeguards is just too expensive and time consuming for brand owners.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b> <o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">In fact, as so many pointed out in Sydney, domain name registrants are Internet users.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We are amazingly diverse, large and small, in developing countries and developed ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We are noncommercial organizations, commercial companies small and large, individuals – registrants include my parents and your children, everyone’s civic organizations and parenting groups, our Scouting associations and other recreation and hobbies, and human rights groups around the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We want domain names in our languages and scripts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We have tens of millions of ideas to share, products and services to market and discuss, and political ideas to convey – and we register domain names to do so. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Domain name registrants (Internet users) pay 100% for ICANN’s operation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is our billions of domain name registration fees which pay the registrars and the registries, who in turn, fund ICANN.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Domain name registrants everywhere are the broad base of the pyramid atop which ICANN rests. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">NCUC, along with so many others in Sydney, proclaimed the right of all domain name registrants to be treated with fairness and equity, justice and process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We are entitled to respect in the ICANN relationship and fundamental fairness before a mere allegation of trademark infringement results in the loss or suspension of our domain name registration and the underlying speech (noncommercial/ commercial) it conveys.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>B.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Cybersquatting has not been proven to be on the rise.</b></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Throughout the IRT Report and Sydney, it was proclaimed that cybersquatting is on the rise because WIPO UDRP filings were up by 7% in 2009.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But on investigation, confrontation with facts, and tough questioning from the floor, it was shown that the facts don’t correspond to the conclusion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">In 2008, domain name registrations were up by 16 percent. Yet, WIPO UDRP filings were up by only 7% -- <b><i>a percentage-wise reduction overall in WIPO UDRP filings</i></b></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">. A number of legitimate reasons were put forward in Sydney for the slight rise of WIPO UDRP filings (about 200 in 2008), including: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">1. <span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Forum shopping – trademark complainants are choosing WIPO because its decisions favor trademark owners;<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">2.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Expansion of UDRP scope – trademark complainants are choosing WIPO because its panelists are allowing not policing the traditional boundaries of the UDRP as closely as other forums;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">3. <span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A huge number of new domain name registrations!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">In anything, the many decisions in favor of Respondents (Registrants) in the 2008 WIPO UDRP decisions show that the UDRP system works – it saves important domain names and the speech and communication for which they are used.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><i>II.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><u>Detailed Commentary on the Substantive Issues of the IRT Final Report and its Proposals<o:p></o:p></u></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><i>“The IRT recommendation should not usurp or replace<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><i>the existence of legal institutions and systems<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><i>that are intended to establish the scope of legal rights<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><i>(e.g., existing laws and national courts).<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><i>IRT Final Report, p. 12.<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><i> <o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><i>The recommendation should protect the existing rights of trademark owners,<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>but neither expand those rights nor create additional legal rights. <o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><i>IRT Final Report, p. 11.<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>1.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Globally Protected Marks List <o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b> <o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><i>Summary</i></b></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">: The Globally Protected Marks List (“GPML”) is an exceptionally weak part of the IRT Report.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is not grounded in law or practice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It creates rights to a string of letters, unbounded by goods, services, or use, in a way far beyond trademark law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The proposal would limit the right of individuals, noncommercial organizations and Internet entrepreneurs to use basic dictionary words in the manner to which they have always been entitled by law, by fair use and by rights of all to language.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><b><i>Analysis and Comment<o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">A.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>The Globally Protected Marks List – the GPML database- is a matter well beyond ICANN's scope and its core competence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In fact, the determination of famous marks is a matter of great dispute among trademark lawyers and scholars, and one that takes considerable time for courts.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">B.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>The GPML is a list far larger than even famous international brands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The GPML, as drafted, may well include hundreds of esoteric scientific and technical terms which, while in international use, may be completely unknown, unrecognized and unused outside their limited technical areas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To grant such words elevated status in all new gTLDs, at top and second levels, defies reason and goes far afield of existing trademark rights.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">C.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The scope of the GPML protection defies the limits of trademark law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The IRT Team proposes that GPML marks will be blocked for registration in all new gTLDs – even those intended for noncommercial use, criticism or journalism, and for the myriad of other ways in which law allows even famous trademarks to be used by others under principles of free speech and freedom of expression, fair use and noncommercial use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The IRT Team ignores the simple fact that trademark rights do not regulate noncommercial speech and it attempts to apply commercial rules to all noncommercial speech.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">D. <span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The GPML pushes ICANN, a <i>technical body</i></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">, into the cutting edge of the most difficult trademark law evaluations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Even national courts are wrestling with these issues – with many different results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A Spanish court protected a local “NIKE” brand owner, over the internationally known brand; the Canadian Supreme Court found that even famous marks are not </span>necessarily entitled to absolute or extensive protection -- even over other commercial marks. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>(See, e.g., Canadian Supreme Court, Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada, Inc. 2006 SCC 22;<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltee, 2006 SCC 23.) <i>This is not the work of ICANN.</i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">E.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The GPML extends the protection of trademark words into noncommercial or fair use – far beyond where trademark law allows such protection to go.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Such overbroad trademark restrictions will inevitably stifle the free flow of information and chill freedom of expression on the Internet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It will also have a detrimental effect upon innovation and use of domain names by entrepreneurs and individual users. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">F.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The GPML extends protection of trademarked words into completely unrelated lines of goods or services, which traditionally remain protected for use by others, even under trademark law (e.g., the use of one’s last name in a professional capacity and as a company name, such as McDonalds, C.P.A. or McDonalds Accounting).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">G. The GPML standard, as applied to top level domains, contradicts trademark law itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The implications of a “confusingly similar” analysis boggle the mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></span>A “goggle” GPML listing might be used to block a future “Google” gTLD application; a “lego” GPML listing might block a future “logo” gTLD application (a children’s programming language created by MIT in the 1960s).<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">H. <span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The NCUC, as final drafter of the UDRP notes that the IRT Report uses UDRP Paragraph 4(c) in a manner which it was never drafted nor intended—and in a way completely outside the bounds of law and language.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>UDRP Paragraph 4(c), rights of registrants, was drafted as a defense to cybersquatting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It was never intended to incorporate all rights of a new registrant to a domain name – nor to require registrants to justify their right to use ordinary words or common names.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We may name our children any name we like, without regard to “existing rights;” we may pick the names of our new products without any right to the terms we choose (other than avoiding clear confusion).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Benjamin Franklin named his almanac “Poor Richard’s Almanac” without any existing right or interest in “Richard.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The IRT Report turns this notion of rights on its head and shifts the burden of proof onto the registrant.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">NCUC supports the right of all Internet users, now and in the future, to use all words – the basic building blocks of language- in any manner not proscribed by law and without any need to prove some existential right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Apple Computer, Inc. did not have to provide such a right, Google did not have to prove a right – neither must those individuals, noncommercial organizations and entrepreneurs who follow. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">I.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span></span><b><i>The attempt to create the GPML has already revealed numerous substantial challenges, opposition, lack of definition and complete lack of agreement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The GMPL’s development, should it be allowed to go forward, will delay, rather than speed, the implementation of new gTLDs.<o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Overall, we recognize the problem the IRT/IPC Team is grappling with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>At some future point, when legitimate criteria are in place or any legitimate body has come to a determination as to which marks should be entitled global protection, ICANN should consider appropriate ways to incorporate the list into registration practices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><b><i>Until then, the creation of such a list by ICANN is completely outside the scope and mission of the organization, as well as outside its expertise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To do so will delay the process of gTLDs forever. <o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>2.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Uniform Rapid Suspension System Policy (URSP)<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><i>Summary: </i></b></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>For those who have participated so long and so well in the GNSO process, the supplanting of the UDRP by the URSP comes as a complete surprise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To the extent that the UDRP needs reform, then let’s sit down and evaluate it together with the entire GNSO and ICANN community.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">As drafted, the proposed USRP supplants the UDRP with its broad access by nearly every trademark owner to the USRP instead of the UDRP.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The URSP, further, guts the UDRP’s protection of domain name registrants by removing reasonable notice provisions and the basic time necessary to prepare a response by registrants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It further opens the domain name dispute policy to gaming, bad acts and abuse by trademark attorneys. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Should the IRT/IPC Team have a much narrower set of particularly egregious bad acts it would like to share for discussion, the NCUC is willing to listen and discuss those truly bad acts. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><b><i>Analysis and Comment<o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">A. <span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Criticism of and opposition to the URSP was nearly universal in Sydney.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Noncommercial users, individuals, commercial users and their representatives rose to speak separately and together against the URSP as a proposed system that provides rights for only one side – the trademark owner – and virtually no rights for domain name registrants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">B.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In its Joint Statement on the IRT Report from members of ALAC and NCUC, the two groups jointly presented the following severe critique of the URSP:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><i> <o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><i>“We have serious issues with the Uniform Rapid Suspension Service (URS) as proposed. For instance, the URS mechanism subverts conventional UDRP practice as it gives entirely insufficient time for notice to the registrant of the pending dispute.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Thus, the registrant is unfairly limited in his/her right of response and the process is missing the fundamental principle of due process.”<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">C. After 10 years in operation, we all have concerns with the UDRP and aspects we would seek to change.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If the IRT/IPC has problems with the UDRP, then let’s investigate them together.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To start the discussion, the NCUC would like to know: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">1.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>When was it decided that the UDRP is insufficient to deal with cybersquatting?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">2. <span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Which parts of the UDRP are problematic? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><i> <o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">D.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Domain name Registrants are entitled to fair notice and a fair time for response.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l9 level2 lfo18;tab-stops:list 1.0in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">a.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Registrants need actual notice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>NCUC representatives wrote into the UDRP the broadest method of notice to work towards “actual notice” – in which the registrant actually knows a proceeding is taking place against her/his domain name.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The URSP has no such goal. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l9 level2 lfo18;tab-stops:list 1.0in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">b.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Registrants need adequate time to respond. As we discussed in Sydney, trademark owners have all the opportunity here: as much time as they choose to prepare a complaint, and an open calendar for submission. Gaming is invited – with complaints likely to be submitted in December or August and decisions made before a vacationing Registrant even knows the complaint was filed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l9 level2 lfo18;tab-stops:list 1.0in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">c.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">As the URSP provides insufficient notice and time, no Registrant or Attorney will be able to provide a proper response --- critical speech will be lost.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><i> <o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify">E.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The URSP operates on the same premise for which the UDRP was created –-<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>to create a cheap and fast system of resolving trademark conflicts online. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify">Ten years ago trademark owners danced in the aisles of the ICANN meeting because the UDRP was far cheaper and faster than actions in local courts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We see nothing in the IRT Report to indicate the UDRP is not working.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We see much in our NCUC evaluation of UDRP cases to illustrate the opposite—that the UDRP actions in favor of registrants are protecting important noncommercial, individual and commercial domain name use and speech online. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify">We further note that UDRP decisions show that trademark owners seek to use the UDRP to silence criticism, stop competition, control discussion, and seek access to words and domain names to which they are not entitled by law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>While the UDRP provides some balance for the potential of abuse on both sides (trademark complainants and registrants), such balances is completely lacking from the URSP. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><i>F. <span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>“The URS is not intended for use in any questionable proceedings, but only clear cases of trademark abuse.”<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify">The IRT recommendation suggests that the Uniform Suspension Syste<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:Robin%20Gross" datetime="2009-07-06T15:09">m</ins></span> is necessary to fight cybersquatting. Around 10 years ago, the exact, same issue justified the creation of the UDRP. "Except in cases involving ‘abusive registrations’ made with bad faith intent to profit commercially from others’ trademarks (e.g. cybersquatting and cyberpiracy) the adopted policy leaves the resolution of disputes to the courts and calls for registrars not to disturb a registration until those courts decide.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The adopted policy establishes a streamlined, inexpensive administrative dispute-resolution procedure intended only for the relatively narrow class of cases of "abusive registrations". <i>Second Staff Report on Implementation Documents for the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy</i><span style="font-style:normal"> (October 24, 1999), available at <<a href="http:www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-second-staff-report-24oct99.htm">http:www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-second-staff-report-24oct99.htm</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">What is really the reason behind the creation of the URSP?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What is on the mind of the IRT Team?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Is this the way of the IRT Team to tell us that ten years of UDRP case law have been unsuccessful?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But, the report itself states that the UDRP has been successful: “The UDRP has unquestionably been an important and successful mediation tool for trademark owners and domain name registrants alike”. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>(IRT Report, p. 25).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The justifications behind the URSP are not convincing enough and seek to address concerns of no substance or reasoning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And some members of the IPR community are already calling for URSP to apply to existing domain names and to replace the UDRP.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">G.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>“Trademark Lawyer Abuse” must be taken into account.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">Everyday, the NCUC and its members see the flip side of cybersquatting --- “Trademark Lawyer Abuse.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There are bad acts, unsubstantiated threats, overbroad claims and misuse of the UDRP process, cease and desist letter and other methods of threatening domain names.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>See the website <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org">www.chillingeffects.org</a> for thousands of examples of such abuses documented by Internet users.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Often trademark lawyers use the UDRP to manipulate the system, take advantage of their Goliath v. David position.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They seek to use the UDRP to remove domain names for reasons that have nothing to do with cybersquatting – but instead to remove competition, to take down criticism, or merely to expand a DN portfolio.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">The URSP proposals fails to take into account the bad faith, gaming, misuse, misinterpretation and abuse of trademark lawyers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Until the proposals are balanced<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>to include concerns from both sides, they cannot be considered for implementation. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.25in;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b><i>H.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>An Invitation for Future Discussion<o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b><i>The NCUC issues the following invitation: if there are extraordinary cases of domain name registration abuse which merit consideration for immediate revocation, we urge the IRT Team to bring them forward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We are willing to consider the possibility of extraordinarily and egregious cases, and appropriate action to address such legitimate concerns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Such circumstances exist in other settings, and might possibly exist here. </i></b><span style="font-weight:normal; font-style:normal"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b><i> <o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b><i>But the scope of the net the URSP catches cannot include legitimate domain name registrants, good actors – it cannot result in the loss of legitimate domain names and the critical speech and free flow of information for which they are used. <o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><b><i> <o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b> <o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>3.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Post-Delegation Dispute Mechanism as Revised by the IRT<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">NCUC argues that the IRT Team’s foray into this area fall far outside the scope of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>the IRT Team’s mandate, which is limited to only commenting on issues of trademark law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The IRT Team’s recommendations about ICANN’s contractual clauses with Registries/Registrars should not be considered.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>4.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>WHOIS<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">In proposing a thick Whois for all new gTLDs, the IRT Team does not provide any explanation as to why such a massive amount of data should be allocated to only one registry for new gTLDs. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Like trademark law, privacy law is territorial in nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Different countries have different laws, and many countries protect the personal data of their citizens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Some countries, including the United States, protect the right of anonymous political speech as a democratic principle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Registrars are more likely to know the privacy and data protection laws which protect their registrants, and the practices of their regions. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">As NCUC and ALAC together presented in their <i>Joint Statement on the IRT Report: <o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><i> <o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><i>We are opposed to the IRT proposal´s policy recommendation to move to a Thick Whois without doing a privacy analysis, nor taking into account national laws nor International Privacy Standards, such as 1980 OECD Guidelines, the Privacy Convention 108 and the EU Data Protection Directive.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b>5. <span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>IP Clearinghouse<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><b><i>Summary</i></b><span style="font-weight:normal; font-style:normal">: The IP Clearinghouse takes ICANN far outside its scope and technical mission.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is an intellectual property rights structure that has no barrier to creation in the private sector, and is consistent with the types of private sector services, including monitoring and alert, now being offered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Further, the creation of such a superstructure of ICANN, a single monolith, will attract such lobbying from brand owners that the rollout of new gTLDs may be further delayed for years!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">To the extent that private IP Clearinghouses emerge in the various regions of the world to support the various languages of the world, and practices of the various national trademark laws, we agree.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Such private structures, or one supported by national Trademark Offices, are consistent with the territorial bounds of trademark law, the diversity of trademark rights and practices and the separate bounds and limits on trademark rights under national laws. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><b><i>Analysis and Comment<o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">NCUC understands from its consultations with IRT attorneys and potential new gTLD applicants that the IP Clearinghouse concept is designed to prevent redundancy and create efficiencies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It may come as a surprise that we have no objection to the general concept – we all support efficiencies, provided they are bounded by the traditional limits of trademark law and provide the new gTLD Registries and Registries with the necessary data to make informed and accurate decisions regarding whether an asserted trademark right truly falls with the scope of a new gTLD. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">NCUC further submits that – in the strongest terms – we contest and discourage ICANN from creating the proposed IP Clearinghouse as a single massive monolithic database of ambiguous trademark rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>For every reason imaginable, including ICANN’s technical mission and specific areas of technical expertise, such an entry into the intellectual property rights legal regimes would derail ICANN’s mission and dramatically change the scope, nature and faces of the ICANN community.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Such an IP Clearinghouse structure could completely derail ICANN.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none">In particular, NCUC notes: </p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">A.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Brand owners have no consensus on what goes into the database.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Throughout Sydney, we heard that registered marks, and unregistered marks, national marks and state marks, intent to use and those in use, and even completely unrelated trademark rights may be entered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">Let the trademark owners create individual, regional IP Clearinghouse or work with the IP Clearinghouses to develop policies that most accurately reflect the rights and territorial limitations of trademark law in their jurisdictions.</p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">B.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>ICANN has no scope nor authority to create a single, monolithic, undefined superstructure to adjudicate legal rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The creation of such a legal regime falls completely outside the function of ICANN as set out in the foundational White Paper. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">C. <span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Even if ICANN had the authority, which it does not, it should not want to create a single, monolithic IP Clearinghouse because such a process will change the nature of the community ICANN serves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The jockeying for position in the IP Clearinghouse, the hope of extending its reach to even the dimmest trademark and other intellectual property right, will lead to a run on ICANN by trademark owners. This discussion, debate, and jockeying for rules of the IP Clearinghouse should happen outside the bounds of ICANN. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">D.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The various national Trademark Offices are in a much better position to lead these discussions than ICANN.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Trademarks are territorial by nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They are bounded by the scope of their use, and by other intricacies of local law, e.g., the law that determines when a well-known, or even famous mark, has become generic (e.g., elevator in American and hoover in English). <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">It is the national Trademark Offices which can best guide this discussion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is the national Trademark Offices which can best work together on a regional basis to support (or even help run) regional IP Clearinghouses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Further, virtually all national Trademark Offices enter their registrations into databases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>While only some provide access to these databases openly to the public online, they could make access easily available to private IP Clearinghouse in which they had a hand in creating and/or running and/or overseeing.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">Further, the national Trademark Offices are also the most informed about the limits of trademark law, their national law protections for freedom of expression and fair use, and can seek to incorporate these balances and protections of their laws into the scope and framework of the IP Clearinghouses. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">E. Should such regional, private (and/or Trademark Office-informed) IP Clearinghouses be created, NCUC strongly recommends the clear and unmitigated addition of information necessary for the new gTLD Registries and Registrars to operate:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l13 level2 lfo20;tab-stops:list 1.0in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b><i>a.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></i></b><b><i>the international class(es) of goods and services in which the goods are registered;<o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l13 level2 lfo20;tab-stops:list 1.0in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b><i>b.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></i></b><b><i>the complete and specific description of goods and services which all trademark applicants must provide as a condition of submitting a trademark application;<o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l13 level2 lfo20;tab-stops:list 1.0in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">c.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span><b><i>the entity granting the trademark registration (e.g., country, region) </i></b><span style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">F.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>To serve IDNs, the private, regional IP Clearinghouses are in the best position to meet the needs of trademark owners working in their own languages and scripts.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">G.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>NCUC agrees that the use of the private IP Clearinghouse should be optional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Registrars and registries should work with the IP Clearinghouses appropriate to their languages, regions, scripts and community.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">H.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>The market has already created IP Clearinghouse-type databases for the sunrise periods that have passed – the market will inevitably meet the need for new private, regional IP Clearinghouses, especially if ICANN makes clear the need for new gTLDs. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="ListParagraph" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify">Overall, a single, dominant, monolithic and monopolistic IP Clearinghouse will delay the implementation of new gTLDs for years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is outside the scope and technical mission of ICANN.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Further, not all conflicts can be anticipated or foreseen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The tried-and-true dispute mechanisms of the UDRP process and courts will continue to provide an avenue to all who feel they have a legitimate case. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>In conclusion, the NCUC appreciates the opportunity to submit these Substantive Comments, and its separate Procedural Comments, in this proceeding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We also appreciated our meeting with members of the IRT Team. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b> <o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b>The reception that we received in that meeting – to our concerns about Trademark Lawyer Abuse, to our concerns for fairness to Domain Name Registrants – showed us that, had the IRT Team held equal numbers of Registrant and Trademark Owner attorneys, our comments today would have been different and this one-sided report would have been much more balanced. </b></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><i> <o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><b><i>Overall, despite its flaws, conceptually the UDRP is still a system that works – and one which, in light of the anticipated traffic in the DNS, can stretch its scope to incorporate novel issues of abuse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Let’s move as the entire GNSO and ICANN community to a substantive UDRP reform.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Together we can improve it fairly– for all parties. </i></b></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <!--EndFragment--> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><br></p> <!--EndFragment--> </div></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div>IP JUSTICE</div><div>Robin Gross, Executive Director</div><div>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</div><div>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451</div><div>w: <a href="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</a> e: <a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br></div></body></html>