<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
Thanks, Kathy, for that update on the hearing yesterday (I've been looking for a copy of the audio of that hearing with no luck so far).<div><br></div><div>That is also great to hear the news about the changes being made to the IRT (like dropping GPML) and sending some parts of that back to the GNSO for community input. That is what we asked for in Sydney (and now we have to do that work which we asked for) :-)</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you!</div><div>Robin</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Sep 24, 2009, at 7:36 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Hi All,</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I wanted to share a few thoughts on the hearing held by Congress on New gTLDs yesterday. Since I live here in Washington DC, I was able to hop the Metro and go down to see it. It was called: Hearing on “The Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on Competition.”</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">There were 4 witnesses who testified: Doug Brent for ICANN, Paul Stahura for eNom, Richard Heath for International Trademark Assoc., and Steve DelBianco for NetChoice (a organization of Verisign and others). So, 2 for new gTLDs (ICANN/eNom) and two against them (INTA/Netchoice-- although NetChoice wants IDNs to move forward).</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Basically, the premise was that ICANN is not doing enough to protect big trademark owners, and who needs new gTLDs anyway?</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Doug Brent properly said that expansion of the root has been part of ICANN's mission since the beginning. New gTLDs will help registrant choice, competition generally, and serve the rest of the world with IDNs. He said ICANN has had at least 3 studies on the New gTLD program, and that the additional studies being called for may or may not be needed; ICANN is looking into it. But he said, rightly, that at some point the studies have to stop and work to go forward.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Brent also said that the policies and procedures for the new gTLDs have been in development at ICANN for years – and came up through the GNSO process, with ICANN community involvement. He said that the process has worked.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Richard Heath, from the International Trademark Association and the UK, said that new gTLDs are: linked to increased crime, threaten health and safety, tarnish existing trademarks, and are only being done to get the money from defensive registrations. (Wow!)</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Paul Stahura from eNom wants new gTLDs. He said that there is consumer demand for new gTLDs, new gTLDs will create competition in price, service, and offerings, and that is definitely time for ICANN to move forward. He also noted later that to roll out IDNs without rolling out new gTLDs in English would be unfair – to have a .BLOG in Chinese and not in English, he argued, would be unfair to eNom and others.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Steve DelBianco was interesting. He is a smooth Washington person and obviously has testified many times. He represents NetChoice, a group which includes VeriSign, and he said that no new gTLDs are needed except IDNs. “With almost 200 million registered domains today, it is hard to see how choice is constrained in any meaningful way...” He said ICANN should enable IDNs before expanding Latin gTLDs-- but only IDNs for “country-code domains controlled by governments.”</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">One great piece of news that came out is that the work we (NCUC) did over the summer is definitely helping shape the debate. As you know, Konstantinos and I in Washington DC and Leslie in China had long detailed meetings with ICANN staff in August, and made strong and well-researched recommendations. Our great work in Sydney – by all who attended and went up to the microphones to protest the IRT Report- was important too!</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">According to Doug's testimony yesterday, ICANN will be sending the IP Clearinghouse and URS (UDRP replacement) to the GNSO for review! The Globally Protected Marks List appears to be gone completely! This is very good news... and an important future piece of work that we (NCUC) should start working on right away.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">That's the scoop from DC.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Best,</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Kathy (Kleiman)</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">p.s. Sorry to miss the NCUC held at the same time!</div> </blockquote></div><br><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="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><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>