Proposed IRT Joint Statement with ALAC

[Kathy Kleiman]

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



__________________
__________________

__________________
__________________




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090623/856ce517/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: alac joint statement DRAFT.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 13962 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090623/856ce517/attachment.docx>