<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>IRT meeting London</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3562" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=634035315-16072009>Konstantinos</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=634035315-16072009>Very glad you could show up there, and thanks for
making our views known. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=634035315-16072009>I am really disappointed to hear that Jeff Neuman, who
I always thought was a fair-minded person, interrupted and attempted to pre-empt
your statement on the completely bogus grounds that he had heard it before. I've
copied him on this message because I want to hear his side of the story.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=634035315-16072009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=634035315-16072009>Perhaps Jeff needs to be reminded that it's the public
that supposed to be listening to and considering this proposal, not the usual
ICANN insiders, and the fact that he heard it before doesn't mean anything.
Indeed, if "we've heard this before" was a valid reason to try to shut someone
up, then maybe the whole IRT panel should have been asked to shut up,
because we've been hearing the same stuff from them for ten
years. It's really bad form but hey, I guess when policy proposals can't
stand on the merits you have to try to make their critics look bad.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>Milton Mueller<BR>Professor, Syracuse University School of
Information Studies<BR>XS4All Professor, Delft University of
Technology<BR>------------------------------<BR>Internet Governance
Project:<BR><A
href="http://internetgovernance.org/">http://internetgovernance.org</A><BR></FONT></P>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Non-Commercial User Constituency
[mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Konstantinos
Komaitis<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:31 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR><B>Subject:</B> [NCUC-DISCUSS] IRT meeting
London<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><FONT face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><BR> <BR><BR><BR><BR></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><BR>--
<BR>Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,<BR>Lecturer in Law,<BR>GigaNet Membership
Chair,<BR>University of Strathclyde,<BR>The Lord Hope Building,<BR>141 St.
James Road,<BR>Glasgow, G4 0LT,<BR>UK<BR>tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306<BR>email: <A
href="k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</A>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN></FONT></BODY></HTML>