FW: New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009

Sat Jul 18 13:13:51 CEST 2009

Dear all,

For your information: This is the view of Olivier on the IRT London meeting
as posted on the ALAC list.

Best

Konstantinos
-- 
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

------ Forwarded Message
> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:27:38 +0100
> To: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at KathyKleiman.com>
> Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>
> Subject: Fw: New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009
> 

> FYI
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <mailto:ocl at gih.com>
> To: At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:56 PM
> Subject: New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009
> 
> New gTLD programme outreach events
> London meeting / 15 July 2009
>  
> Panel:
> Fabricio Vayra - Counsel, Intellectual Property - Time Warner
> Stacey King - Intellectual Property Lawyer - Richemont International
> David Taylor - Partner - Lovells
> Ellen B. Shankman - Attorney at Law, Ellen B. Shankman & Associates
> Jonathan Cohen - Senior Partner - Shapiro Cohen
> Jeff Neuman - Vice President - Law & Policy, NeuStar
> Eun-Joo Min - Head of Legal Development Section - WIPO Arbitration & Mediation
> Center
> Richard Tindall - Senior VP or Registry - Demand Media
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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.
> That said, Konstantinos told me he spoke with other people who favoured the
> GPML, the IP Clearinghouse etc.
>  
> Every participant was given a set of sheets, one of each colour, asking a
> specific questions of the type:
> IP ClearingHouse proposal:
> - I broadly support this proposal
> - I broadly do not support this proposal
> Comment:
>  
> 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.
>  
> The afternoon started with more comment period, and thankfully there was a lot
> of time allocated to comments.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> (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! )
>  
> 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.
>  
> Personal notes
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> Any questions: don't hesitate to ask!
>  
> Warm regards,
>  
> -- 
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
> 

------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090718/d73639b1/attachment.html>