<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>FW: New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Dear all,<BR>
<BR>
For your information: This is the view of Olivier on the IRT London meeting as posted on the ALAC list.<BR>
<BR>
Best<BR>
<BR>
Konstantinos<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>
<BR>
------ Forwarded Message<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><B>From: </B>Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<a href="ocl@gih.com">ocl@gih.com</a>><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:27:38 +0100<BR>
<B>To: </B>Kathy Kleiman <<a href="Kathy@KathyKleiman.com">Kathy@KathyKleiman.com</a>><BR>
<B>Cc: </B>Konstantinos Komaitis <<a href="k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a>><BR>
<B>Subject: </B>Fw: New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT FACE="Arial">FYI<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
----- Original Message ----- <BR>
<B>From:</B> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">mailto:ocl@gih.com</a>> <BR>
<B>To:</B> <a href="At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a> <BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:56 PM<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Arial">New gTLD programme outreach events<BR>
London meeting / 15 July 2009<BR>
<BR>
Panel:<BR>
Fabricio Vayra - Counsel, Intellectual Property - Time Warner<BR>
Stacey King - Intellectual Property Lawyer - Richemont International<BR>
David Taylor - Partner - Lovells<BR>
Ellen B. Shankman - Attorney at Law, Ellen B. Shankman & Associates<BR>
Jonathan Cohen - Senior Partner - Shapiro Cohen<BR>
Jeff Neuman - Vice President - Law & Policy, NeuStar<BR>
Eun-Joo Min - Head of Legal Development Section - WIPO Arbitration & Mediation Center<BR>
Richard Tindall - Senior VP or Registry - Demand Media<BR>
<BR>
I had breakfast with Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Lecturer in IT & Commercial law at Univ of Strathclyde, who led the charge on behalf of NCUC in London, as well as with Richard Tindall (see above). We discussed the points of the IRT report, point by point. Richard is, among the panel, the only person who does not agree with all recommendations of the IRT, although he believes we should not completely reject all points.<BR>
<BR>
Starting at 9:00am, the morning was spent listening to presentations from ICANN (Introduction to New gTLD Program) and trademark protection presentations. Presentations are available elsewhere - just the standard blurb which we have seen many times already. Since those ran longer than expected, questions were only taken from the floor at 12:10. Only 2 people managed to speak - 2 usual suspects which we all know. Whilst logged in online in the adobe connect room, I asked Peter (Dengate Thrush - who was not present physically) to ask his staff to be more stringent on mic time. This was done in the afternoon.<BR>
<BR>
Much discussion was undertaken over lunch, with the general mood of the participants whom I spoke to being the the GPML would not pass, the IP Clearinghouse would be in doubt, the URS would need changes if it were to pass, and unknown interest for the rest of the recommendations. <BR>
That said, Konstantinos told me he spoke with other people who favoured the GPML, the IP Clearinghouse etc. <BR>
<BR>
Every participant was given a set of sheets, one of each colour, asking a specific questions of the type: <BR>
IP ClearingHouse proposal:<BR>
- I broadly support this proposal<BR>
- I broadly do not support this proposal<BR>
Comment:<BR>
<BR>
Forms could be given in anonymously, so I suspect we'll only know the reality once these are processed by ICANN staff. As in any such discussions, I suspect some participants say something in public and vite differently anonymously.<BR>
<BR>
The afternoon started with more comment period, and thankfully there was a lot of time allocated to comments.<BR>
Konstantinos Komaitis wanted to read a statement from NCUC but was rudely cut short by Jeff Neuman since, according to him, it was just the same thing was what had been said in New York. Konstantinos replied that he was repeating it for the sake of the audience in London to hear it, and Jeff asked him to speed this up. On the whole, and although my judgement might be biased in a way, I think that this did not reflect well on Jeff Neuman's standing.<BR>
Werner Staub from CORE asked for proceedings in getting the gTLD process to be speeded up. It appears that they just see the IRT as another stumbling block and are ready to say "yes yes yes" as long as they can go ahead with creating new gTLDs. Several other participants defended their small piece of pie, not really caring about the general user / registrant.<BR>
Thankfully, we had the presence of John Levine among us, who took the mic to very eloquently tell the panel what he did not agree with. <BR>
(I had been told privately before the meeting that it was not quantity but quality of response/respondent that mattered - so John's presence was a real boost - thanks John! )<BR>
<BR>
Speaking to some ICANN staff & other particpants afterwards, I believe that the user's point of view is well understood. It was also mentioned publicly that sadly not enough users were represented there, and I pointed out to Fabricio Vayra (with whom I spoke to along with Konstantinos Komaitis) that the IRT team would have avoided embarrassment had it included representatives from At-Large & NCUC. He still believes hard as steel that the recommendations presented by the IRT team are benefitting the users as much as brand owners. He also agrees with the representative from WIPO (Eun-Joo Min) that costs for the trademark-related proposals (IP clearinghouse, GPML etc.) should be borne not only by trademark owners but also by everyone else. We made him understand that we should agree to disagree on this.<BR>
<BR>
Personal notes<BR>
<BR>
Ultimately, all points of view are known by everyone now. It is clear that the IRT team will stick to its guns and we'll stick to ours. It is obvious that we live in parrallel worlds. Furthermore, whilst the panellists were introduced as acting independently of their job assignments, speaking to each panellists in private, it is plain obvious that their professional function put them in a position where their employer/clients put pressure on them. I understand that they did a lot of work but this work was not independent.<BR>
<BR>
That's it for the time being. I hope it gives a fair idea of what went on. No doubt others will also write a little review of the day as well. If I receive more info, I'll forward/cross-post it to the relevant lists.<BR>
<BR>
Any questions: don't hesitate to ask!<BR>
<BR>
Warm regards,<BR>
<BR>
-- <BR>
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD<BR>
<a href="http://www.gih.com/ocl.html">http://www.gih.com/ocl.html</a><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
</FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
------ End of Forwarded Message<BR>
</FONT></SPAN>
</BODY>
</HTML>