Proposed IRT Joint Statement with ALAC

[Katitza Rodriguez Pereda]

ALAC has not confirmed that they sign on into the letter.
They are consulting their members. We will know it, early tomorrow......


On Jun 25, 2009, at 12:17 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________ __________________
>>>>
>>>> __________________ __________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>