Proposed IRT Joint Statement with ALAC

[Fouad Bajwa]

Hi Kathy,

The statement is very elaborate and raises the right concerns. It is
interesting how various lobby groups want to use the ICANN platform to
gather and do something that is WIPO's headache in the form of the
GPML. Its just trying to reinvent a busted and rusted wheel. It can be
done, the world hasn't reached to the stage of maturity of forming and
agreeing to universally acceptable governance models. It seems to make
a mark in the multilateral system whereas they themselves have no
recognition over the protection of trademarks.

It is also worth noting here, that these groups want to establish an
IPR protection model above the state laws of all the countries
involved within the IPR regime protection. Todate, no universally
accepted IPR model exists and all are under debate or flames globally.

There is a need for the ALAC and NCUC to once again knock some sense
in to these people that try to spill over from ICANN's true terms of
incorporation and activities. ICANN and its lobbies from the business
sector are already disputed enough and such initiatives only tend to
move ICANN away from its actual work.

In my language they call it "Jheenga-Mushti" like prawns and shrimps
wrestling together over something of no importance. ICANN trying to
tread on other organizations work that exist through multilateral
treaties is a big no no especially when it itself has not been
democratised to the level of globally open, inclusive and independent
governance of the domain name and ip systems.

Once again, good go!



-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa





On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Kathy Kleiman<Kathy at kathykleiman.com> 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
>
>
>
> __________________
> __________________
>
> __________________
> __________________
>
>
>