Proposed IRT Joint Statement with ALAC

[Kathy Kleiman]

Dear Baudouin,
Patrick of ALAC has graciously agreed to translate the Joint Statement,
and will try to do so on the flight home.
I'll circulate it when he shares them with us.

All, thanks for the support, encouragement and complements. They mean a
lot!!
Kathy


> Dear Baudouin,
> One of the drafters of the Joint Statement is French. Let me talk to
> him and see if he will translate.
> Tx for distributing!
> Kathy
>> Kathy,
>>
>> thanks to share this draft. It's very important and I wish if
>> possible to have a french version allowing me to share it among
>> different plat form and network in DR Congo and Central Africa by
>> national and sub regional mailing list.
>> I tried to do a substantial translation but I have fear to go
>> out understanding content.
>> congratulations for this work.
>>
>> Baudouin
>>
>> 2009/6/23 Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com
>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>>
>>     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
>>
>>
>>
>>     __________________
>>     __________________
>>
>>     __________________
>>     __________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>> COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
>> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>> téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91
>> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571
>> email:b.schombe at gmail.com <mailto:email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
>> http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>> http://educticafrique.ning.com/
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090626/e3e732a9/attachment.html>