<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dear Konstantinos, <br>
Tx for the great fight yesterday and tx for continuing despite the
trademark owners and IRT members who tried to stop you. That trademark
owners can again and again come to the microphone to ask for more
protections -- and that you get stopped for sharing legitimate concerns
-- is astounding. <br>
<br>
Congratulations to you -- and great thanks to Rebecca, John, Paul and
all who spoke in London on behalf of the rights of registrants, free
speech and fair use. <br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:C684FB1D.85D8%25k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote cite="mid:C684F844.85C0%25k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk"
type="cite"><span>Dear all,<br>
<br>
Just back from the IRT meeting in London and let me share briefly with
you what happened (very dizzy after so many hours on the train).<br>
<br>
As in NY, the whole morning was spent at presentations by the IRT
panel, WIPO, ICANN and some individuals; that took us to lunch and
after that the panel gave the floor for statements/questions.<br>
<br>
Presentations: the IRT panel seemed to be toning down a bit and I think
that had to do with the reaction they received in NY. They said of
course the same things over and over again and how great the report is,
but they made it clear that this report does not represent the views of
ICANN (implying that we should not target ICANN) and that also we need
to remember the short time-frame within which the team operated.<br>
Richard Tindal of Demand Media spoke against most of the report. So
did, Paul Keating, who focused on the URS and slammed it down.<br>
<br>
Then the statements came. Many of the people who grabbed the microphone
were in favour of the report – the Danish law society, Nestle, some
Registrars, etc. Nothing surprising there; what was surprising – to me
at least – was the reaction that I received during our statement
statement. I was abruptly interrupted by Jeff Neuman, who asked whether
it was necessary to read the NCUC statement, since it was along the
same lines as Kathy’s in New York. Of course, I continued reading the
statement telling Jeff that the panel might be the same as in NY but
the audience is not; more questions came from the ICANN staff as well
as from Fabricio Vayra about our statement (mainly about the IP
Clearinghouse and GPML). After many interruptions, I finally managed to
get through the whole thing. <br>
<br>
Rebecca gave a great statement as did some other people (John Levine
for instance). Overall, I realized that the IRT team is at a great
advantage. Hearing them speaking, I though that if I didn’t know any
better, I would think that they are doing a great job under difficult
circumstances. That is how the public saw it at least. We need to
continue with this fight and we need to get as many voices as possible.
In London there were not enough and the IRT is gaining ground. <br>
<br>
The good news is that I was approached by a reporter who wants to do a
piece on it for the forthcoming issue of World Trademark Review (mainly
targeting trademark lawyers) and I had a brief exchange of email with a
guy from the economist who also showed some interest. I will let you
know about these two things.<br>
<br>
Thank you.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Konstantinos<br>
<br>
Statement:<br>
<br>
Good afternoon. My name is Konstantinos Komaitis and I am here both in
my capacity as an academic with research experience in domain name
regulation and as a member of ICANN’s Non-Commercial User Constituency.
Above all, however, I am here as a registrant who has serious concerns
about this report and how it makes all non-commercial users look bad.<br>
<br>
Here are in brief our concerns:<br>
IP Clearinghouse: it falls outside the scope and mission of ICANN.
Putting ICANN in charge of this massive database, transmogrifies and
gives privileges to ICANN currently enjoyed by national trademark
offices. It is of great concern that in the years to come this database
could be abused and/or misused against future domain name registrants.
The idea is valuable but its presentation is problematic. Over the past
ten years, the market has shown that it can provide solutions – and
this is one need that we can trust the market to meet.<br>
GPML: it changes the face of traditional trademark law. Currently,
there is no international consensus on which marks are worthy of global
protection and WIPO has refrained from producing such list. The list
seeks to protect marks not according to their associated goodwill, as
has always been the case in trademark law, but merely as strings of
characters regardless of use or relevance. This is not what trademark
law is about.<br>
URS: is a dangerous provision and can set a treacherous precedent. It
should be expected that the URS will replace the UDRP with a much
faster, cheaper and fundamentally unfair process. Similar to the
current UDRP culture, the URS is a process open to abuse and procedural
injustice. The conceptual basis and the language of the URS is
reminiscent to the conceptual basis and language of the UDRP – so why
not amend the existing regime?<br>
We also strongly oppose the thick WHOIS and the post-delegation dispute
mechanism, but I am running out of time.<br>
The IRT report states: “The recommendation should protect the existing
rights of trademark owners, but neither expand those rights nor create
additional legal rights”. The IRT report does not conform with this; it
fails to see trademarks as limited rights as it fails to incentivize
registrants. On the contrary, it expands the rights of trademark owners
beyond their intended purpose. <br>
Thank you.<br>
<br>
</span>
<blockquote> <span><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span> </blockquote>
<span><br>
-- <br>
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,<br>
Lecturer in Law,<br>
GigaNet Membership Chair,<br>
University of Strathclyde,<br>
The Lord Hope Building,<br>
141 St. James Road,<br>
Glasgow, G4 0LT,<br>
UK<br>
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306<br>
email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a>
<br>
</span> </blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>