IRT meeting London

[Kathy Kleiman]

Dear Konstantinos,
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.

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.
Best,
Kathy
> Dear all,
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
> Richard Tindal of Demand Media spoke against most of the report. So
> did, Paul Keating, who focused on the URS and slammed it down.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best
> Konstantinos
>
> Statement:
>
> 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.
>
> Here are in brief our concerns:
> 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.
> 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.
> 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?
> We also strongly oppose the thick WHOIS and the post-delegation
> dispute mechanism, but I am running out of time.
> 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.
> Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
> Lecturer in Law,
> GigaNet Membership Chair,
> University of Strathclyde,
> The Lord Hope Building,
> 141 St. James Road,
> Glasgow, G4 0LT,
> UK
> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
> email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090716/3804cc8f/attachment.html>