IRT update and Board Letter!

[Jorge Amodio]

I didn't analyze the letter in detail yet but kind of didn't like the
tone that sounds like
putting the GNSO against the wall telling to approve by consensus what
the staff proposed
or come up with an alternative.

At least for me, it's very confusing what's the entity at ICANN
responsible for bottom-up policy
development, IMHO is not the staff.

On a related note, I'm participating remotely at an ISOC-AR meeting
where an ex-IRT group
member keeps talking about the same stuff without a word about how the
product of that
group has been questioned in many fronts.

I guess the K-team will be very busy the next few weeks :-)

Regards
Jorge




On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis
<k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> In  preparation for Seoul, I would like to briefly share with you my reading
> on the ICANN proposals on the URS and Trademark Clearinghouse – these have
> been sent back to the GNSO. I also attach the letter instructing the GNSO to
> work on these issues. We asked for this, so the work in Seoul will be
> critical.
>
> First, the GPML is completely gone – hurray.
>
> The proposal on the clearinghouse takes most of our recommendations on
> board. As Kathy and myself suggested, they changed the name to the more
> restrictive Trademark Clearinghouse and addressed many of our concerns. The
> proposal suggests two entities (one for validation purposes and the other
> for maintenance and trademark watch services), which functions will be under
> a limited charter, will have no discretionary powers and cannot create
> policy. They also suggest reviews and communication between the
> clearinghouse and trademark offices. There are certainly some other issues,
> but on first reading it is much better than the original version.
>
> The URS is a different story, it is much, much worse. It continues to limit
> the rights of registrants, by sticking to short deadlines and expanding the
> definition of default. Contrary to what Kathy and I have suggested, it does
> not create a system for ‘serial cybersquatting’ and it is to be expected
> that it will be gamed by the trademark community. A significant change is
> that it loosens the criteria compared to the UDRP and makes it easier to get
> a ‘lock’ decision.
>
> That’s it – just wanted to keep all of you informed. Seoul will be great,
> and Kathy and myself are about to start working on the various issues. Input
> welcome. I hope to see most of you in Seoul.
>
> KK
> --
> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
> Lecturer in Law,
> GigaNet Membership Chair,
> University of Strathclyde,
> The Lord Hope Building,
> 141 St. James Road,
> Glasgow, G4 0LT,
> UK
> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
> email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk
>
>
>