new list member

[Kathy Kleiman]

Milton, I had no idea that this was the first Joint Statement of NCUC
and ALAC.  Tx for the good words!
It seemed a natural, particularly on this IRT issue.

Robin and Cheryl were great in their joint presentation of the NCUC/ALAC
statement, and the applause (as well as our NCUC and ALAC friends at the
microphones) made it clear that noncommercial and individual registrants
are very, very united in their concerns.

Kathy
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________ __________________
>>>>
>>>> __________________ __________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>