Proposed IRT Joint Statement with ALAC

[Divina MEIGS]

Great text indeed. Congratulations to the writers and to the speakers.
Shouldn't it be sent around to our various constituencies?

Divina 


Le 24/06/09 16:17, « Milton L Mueller » <mueller at SYR.EDU> a écrit :

>> 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
>>