Motion on the IRT?

[William Drake]

Hi,

Moving this from the EC to the members list as it may be of broader  
interest.  I don't see anything in the thread below that is unsuitable  
for wider distribution, my apologies to whomever if they think that's  
a misjudgment.

  I've raised this bilaterally with a few people who expressed  
interest but it's never percolated out into the broader ideasphere, so  
here goes.

It has been suggested that NCUC councilors could propose a motion to  
launch a PDP on the IRT recommendations, since this is a policy  
decision, not an "implementation," and open and pluralistic GNSO  
processes were bypassed by the IPC's swank traveling road show.  I can  
see the benefit of pursuing this approach from the standpoints of a)  
building healthy institutional practices in ICANN and b) slowing down  
the movement toward adoption of lousy policy.  On the other hand,  
there might be a tactical trade-off.  Were a motion to be adopted (not  
clear who'd support it) it would turn the discussion into another  
turgid GNSO bureaucratic exercise.  To the extent that NCUC and ALAC  
have been able to point to the illegitimacy of the process being  
followed as well as the crap outputs in order to mobilize attention,  
engagement and support, "nomalizing" the thing might turn down the  
heat, nix the press coverage, and dampen some of the enthusiasm that's  
worked to the benefit of cs at icann.

What do people think?  Should we put a motion to the next council  
meeting?  Kathy seems to think yes, below...

I believe the next council call is Aug. 13, so we'd have to get it in  
and feel out the possible support in early Aug.

Bill


On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:40 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> Tx Robin, it is terrific news, and we are pleased with all the  
> opposition and concern raised so far: in the speeches, with  
> publicity, and now at the upcoming ICANN meeting.
>
> In answer to your excellent question, until we meet with staff, we  
> do not know what ICANN has in mind. We do know they have received  
> considerable criticism on the report, and that they are willing to  
> rethink aspects of it. How much, how far (?) we don't know. But  
> given the support of the IPC, Registrars, Registries, WIPO and US  
> Dept. of Commerce for the IRT Report, it is very unlikely it can be  
> stopped entirely.
>
> What NCUC submitted in our procedural comments to the IRT is that  
> the ICANN staff must work very closely with all sides, not just the  
> IRT Committee. I think they are trying to do so by inviting us to  
> California.
>
> What we submitted in our substantive comments is that everything  
> needs to be narrowed -- with as much as possible going back to the  
> GNSO for a PDP.  That's especially true for the URS, the new and  
> proposed rapid takedown process. Much of that should go back to the  
> GNSO for a full and thorough UDRP Review.  Only the most eggregious  
> cases, perhaps, should be subject to some rapid takedown process,  
> subject to clear limits and easy appeals. But most of what is now  
> defined as "URS" belongs in UDRP -- and absolutely should go through  
> the GNSO and PDP!
>
> I think the Globally Protected Marks List should fall completely. I  
> am happy to say that key registrars are with us!
>
> The IP Clearinghouse is a real problem for us. Konstantinos and I  
> both are deeply concerned about it, but we are the only ones talking  
> about it. We are the only ones raising the flag. We will give this  
> one lots of time in the ICANN meeting. Further, it we can, we will  
> work out a counterproposal - something where there will NOT be one  
> big, monster database with undefined, unlimited, and unverified  
> "intellectual property."  The potential for current and future abuse  
> is enormous. Even Stallman is with us!
>
> So we prepare for the ICANN meeting, which may take place as early  
> as next week, and appreciate all of your ideas, input and feedback
> Best,
> Kathy & Konstantinos
> (signing Konstantinos' name because we are working together closely.  
> We/NCUC are so fortunate to have him, a leading academic in the  
> field, and amazing for his breadth of knowledge and deep concern for  
> the implications of what ICANN is creating!)
>
>> Kathy,
>>
>> Congrats!   This is terrific news and definitely a change in  
>> ICANN's position from Sydney.  :-)   Great big thanks to you and to  
>> Konstantinos for this change.
>>
>> Are there any more details about what ICANN has in mind?   I  
>> presume staff will be "fixing" the IRT Report?
>>
>> There is also some talk in the GNSO about forcing it to go back to  
>> a PDP since the report is really a policy creation and not  
>> implementation.  I would prefer the 2nd option (PDP) if we had to  
>> choose between them because policy should come from the GNSO (and  
>> not staff), but I don't know how realistic it is that a PDP could  
>> be agreed upon by enough of the GNSO (and what would the board do  
>> with it?).
>>
>> We should discuss these options in more depth and I'd appreciate  
>> hearing what others think about how to proceed with the IRT Report  
>> now.
>>
>> Thanks again, Kathy!  We never could have come this far without you.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 21, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>
>>> (If I don't have posting privileges to this list, could someone  
>>> please send this email on to old and new friends. Tx.)
>>>
>>> Dear Friends on the NCUC Executive Committee:
>>>
>>> We did it! Our weeks/months of work against the IRT Report are  
>>> bearing fruit – we have forced ICANN into action!
>>>
>>> As you know, the trip to Sydney was grueling. I spent several  
>>> weeks analyzing the 69-page IRT Report, and truly dissecting it!  
>>> In Sydney and NYC, I led the IRT fight at the public meetings (and  
>>> many private ones) – we were very vocal and active! We attracted  
>>> the attention of ICANN and the press!
>>>
>>> Now ICANN is ready to listen. Not just for 3 minutes in a public  
>>> forum, but in detail, for a day, at their main offices in Marina  
>>> Del Ray. ICANN is ready to fly us out! It is a huge step for the  
>>> ICANN staff- to pay our way, to meet with us, and to listen to us  
>>> in detail. But it is an opening of a door that was closed and  
>>> locked before now -- we did it!
>>>
>>> I cheer Chairman Robin for her support, thank my great partner Dr.  
>>> Konstantinos Komaitis, and applaud you, the Executive Committee.  
>>> Through your support, a small team stalled the IRT/Intellectual  
>>> Property Constituency's world :-)!. We were strong, we were right  
>>> and we were vocal in the right places.
>>>
>>> Of course, the work really begins now – and we need to turn our  
>>> detailed comments into specific language and strong  
>>> counterproposals – language the Staff can incorporate and use to  
>>> revise the IRT Report.
>>>
>>> But I wanted to let you know where we are – and how far we have  
>>> come!
>>>
>>> Comments, feedback and suggestions welcome!
>>>
>>> Best and great thanks,
>>> Kathy
>>>
>>> CC: Norbert Klein Dr. Milton Mueller, and Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>
>>
>>
>

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090724/19bd9ee9/attachment.html>