Proposed IRT Joint Statement with ALAC

[Milton L Mueller]

Very good statement, Kathy. I hope you get a chance to make it clear that ALAC and NCUC and indeed most normal registrants are united on this matter.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
> DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:42 PM
> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Proposed IRT Joint Statement with ALAC
> 
> > Kathy, is the final version of the alac-ncuc statement available
> already?
> >
> > --c.a.
> Good morning Carlos and NCUC,
> Yes, the ALAC-NCUC statement that the wonderful group of ALAC and NCUC
> negotiated last night is available.
> This draft is now being reviewed by ALAC. It is very similar to the one
> we circulated in NCUC yesterday - with clearer privacy
> language courtesy of Katiza, and a number of general edits from ALAC.
> Overall, the key points are the same, and it was
> a good and constructive joint editing session yesterday:
> 
> JOINT STATEMENT (still in draft)
> 
> The At-Large Community, the At-Large Advisory Committee and the
> Non-Commercial Users Constituency of ICANN strongly support the creation
> of new gTLDs. Having said that, the process to move forward with changes
> to the Draft Applicant's Guidebook requires the legitimacy of full
> community participation and full transparency.
> 
> In the case of the IRT Report, we had neither transparency nor openness.
> The IRT Report and its recommendations harm the interests of domain name
> Registrants and Internet end users, and consequently we must object to
> the vast bulk of its recommendations.
> 
> 
> To be more specific:
> 
> 1. The Globally Protected Marks List - the GPML database- is a matter
> well beyond ICANN's scope and its core competence. It presumes to be
> able to resolve an issue that continues to divide full-time trademark
> experts.
> 
> 2. The attempt to create the GPML has already revealed numerous
> substantial challenges; its development has the strong potential to
> delay, rather than to speed, the implementation of new gTLDs.
> 
> 3. The GPML takes no consideration of the actual limits of rights and
> protections allowed to trademarks. In the real world, trademark owners
> apply for a trademark in a specific class of goods and services, and
> their use is bound to that class or classes and subject to territorial
> and other well known recognized limitations. In particular, trademark
> law does not regulate non-commercial speech. By protecting a string of
> letters in all new gTLDs, the GPML would extend trademarks into new
> gTLDs far beyond the bounds of their class of goods and services, far
> beyond existing national laws and international treaties.
> 
> 
> 3. We have serious issues with the Uniform Rapid Suspension Service
> (URS) as proposed. For instance, the URS mechanism subverts conventional
> UDRP practice  as it gives entirely insufficient time for notice to the
> registrant of the pending dispute. Thus, the registrant is unfairly
> limited in his/her right of response and the process is missing the
> fundamental principle of due process.
> 
> 
> 4. We are opposed to the IRT proposal´s policy recommendation to move to
> a Thick Whois without doing a privacy analysis, nor taking into account
> national laws nor International Privacy Standards, such as 1980 OECD
> Guidelines, the Privacy Convention 108 and the EU Data Protection
> Directive.
> 
> Overall, we wish the result were different. We wish the IRT had
> delivered a balanced proposal for the protection of trademarks and
> privacy. But the product delivered is far outside the scope and core
> competence of ICANN, and outside the bounds of trademark and privacy law.
> 
> We can do better; we must do better. In its current form, the IRT
> proposal is unacceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Signed
> 
> 
> 
> ALAC
> 
> NCUC
> 
> 
> 
> __________________
> 
> __________________
> 
> __________________
> 
> __________________*
> 
> 
> >
> > Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >> For discussion purposes a little later in our meeting today, here is
> >> a DRAFT Joint Statement on the IRT Report between NCUC and ALAC.
> >> It would be very nice if, at the Board Public Forum on Thursday, we
> >> could go up together with ALAC to make a strong joint statement.
> >> That would make the Board wake up! :-)
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Kathy
> >> (below in text and attached in Word)
> >>
> >> DRAFT
> >>
> >> Joint Statement on the DIRT Report
> >>
> >>> From ALAC and NCUC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The At-Large Community, ALAC and the Non-Commercial Users
> >> Constituency of ICANN strongly support the creation of new gTLDs.
> >> Having said that, the process to move forward with changes to the DAG
> >> Guidebook requires the legitimacy of full community participation and
> >> full transparency.
> >>
> >> In the case of the IRT Report, we had neither transparency nor
> >> openness. The IRT Report and its recommendations harm the interests
> >> of domain name Registrants and Internet end users, and consequently
> >> we must object to the vast bulk of its recommendations.
> >>
> >>
> >> To be more specific:
> >> 1. The Globally Protected Marks List -- the GPML database- is a
> >> matter well beyond ICANN's scope and its core competence. It presumes
> >> to be able to resolve an issue that even WIPO wrestles with. Clearly
> >> the creation of the GPML, if even possible, would cause enormous
> >> complexity. Instead of speeding up the process of creating new gTLDs,
> >> it would introduce delays that would last for years. But the creation
> >> of this list must take place outside of ICANN.
> >>
> >> 2. The GPML takes no consideration of the actual limits of rights and
> >> protections allowed to trademarks. In the real world, trademark
> >> owners apply for a trademark in a specific class of goods and
> >> services, and their use is bound to that class or classes. By
> >> protecting a string of letters in all new gTLDs, the GPML would
> >> extend trademarks into new gTLDs far beyond the bounds of their class
> >> of goods and services, far beyond existing national laws and
> >> internationatreaties.
> >> 3. We have enormous problems with the Uniform Suspension Service
> >> (URS). The URS mechanism subverts conventional UDRP practice as it
> >> gives entirely insufficient time for notice to the registrant of the
> >> pending dispute. Thus, the registrant is unfairly limited in his/her
> >> right of response and the process is missing the fundamental
> >> principle of due process.
> >>
> >>
> >> [ Kathy Note: This paragraph below seems to be somewhat controversial
> >> within ALAC. I think we will be dropping it. Don't worry, we'll
> >> include the statement in our comments -- if you all agree]
> >> 4. ALAC and NCUC strongly object to the Thick Whois Registry. In
> >> mandating such, the IRT Committee did not address any of the privacy
> >> issues that arise from moving personal data from many countries with
> >> data protection laws, perhaps, to a single country without data
> >> protection. Does ICANN really want to be in a position in which it
> >> may be violating national laws?
> >>
> >>
> >> Overall, we wish the result were different. We wish the IRT had
> >> delivered a reasonable proposal for the protection of trademarks. But
> >> the product delivered is far outside the scope and core competence of
> >> ICANN, and outside the bounds of trademark law.
> >>
> >> We can do better; we must do better before we move forward.
> >>
> >> Consequently, NCUC and ALAC stand before this forum together in
> >> fundamental opposition to many of the IRT Results.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Signed [for sharing a written cop y of a floor statement with the
> Board]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ALAC NCUC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________ __________________
> >>
> >> __________________ __________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >