Hearing in DC on New gTLDs yesterday

[Seth Johnson]

It is very good news!  Kickin' A!

:-)


Seth

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:36:17 -0700
Subject: Re: Hearing in DC on New gTLDs  yesterday

> Thanks, Kathy, for that update on the hearing yesterday (I've
> been  
> looking for a copy of the audio of that hearing with no luck so
> far).
> 
> That is also great to hear the news about the changes being
> made to  
> the IRT (like dropping GPML) and sending some parts of that
> back to  
> the GNSO for community input.  That is what we asked for in
> Sydney  
> (and now we have to do that work which we asked for)  :-)
> 
> Thank you!
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Sep 24, 2009, at 7:36 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 
> > Hi All,
> > I wanted to share a few thoughts on the hearing held by
> Congress on  
> > New gTLDs yesterday. Since I live here in Washington DC, I
> was able  
> > to hop the Metro and go down to see it. It was called:
> Hearing on  
> > “The Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on
> Competition.”
> >
> > There were 4 witnesses who testified: Doug Brent for ICANN,
> Paul  
> > Stahura for eNom, Richard Heath for International Trademark
> Assoc.,  
> > and Steve DelBianco for NetChoice (a organization of Verisign
> and  
> > others). So, 2 for new gTLDs (ICANN/eNom) and two against
> them  
> > (INTA/Netchoice-- although NetChoice wants IDNs to move
> forward).
> >
> > Basically, the premise was that ICANN is not doing enough to 
> > protect big trademark owners, and who needs new gTLDs anyway?
> >
> > Doug Brent properly said that expansion of the root has been
> part  
> > of ICANN's mission since the beginning. New gTLDs will help  
> > registrant choice, competition generally, and serve the rest
> of the  
> > world with IDNs. He said ICANN has had at least 3 studies on
> the  
> > New gTLD program, and that the additional studies being
> called for  
> > may or may not be needed; ICANN is looking into it. But he
> said,  
> > rightly, that at some point the studies have to stop and work
> to go  
> > forward.
> >
> > Brent also said that the policies and procedures for the new
> gTLDs  
> > have been in development at ICANN for years – and came up
> through  
> > the GNSO process, with ICANN community involvement. He said
> that  
> > the process has worked.
> >
> > Richard Heath, from the International Trademark Association
> and the  
> > UK, said that new gTLDs are: linked to increased crime,
> threaten  
> > health and safety, tarnish existing trademarks, and are only
> being  
> > done to get the money from defensive registrations. (Wow!)
> >
> > Paul Stahura from eNom wants new gTLDs. He said that there is
>  
> > consumer demand for new gTLDs, new gTLDs will create
> competition in  
> > price, service, and offerings, and that is definitely time
> for  
> > ICANN to move forward. He also noted later that to roll out
> IDNs  
> > without rolling out new gTLDs in English would be unfair – to
> have  
> > a .BLOG in Chinese and not in English, he argued, would be
> unfair  
> > to eNom and others.
> >
> > Steve DelBianco was interesting. He is a smooth Washington
> person  
> > and obviously has testified many times. He represents
> NetChoice, a  
> > group which includes VeriSign, and he said that no new gTLDs
> are  
> > needed except IDNs. “With almost 200 million registered
> domains  
> > today, it is hard to see how choice is constrained in any  
> > meaningful way...” He said ICANN should enable IDNs before  
> > expanding Latin gTLDs-- but only IDNs for “country-code
> domains  
> > controlled by governments.”
> >
> > One great piece of news that came out is that the work we
> (NCUC)  
> > did over the summer is definitely helping shape the debate.
> As you  
> > know, Konstantinos and I in Washington DC and Leslie in China
> had  
> > long detailed meetings with ICANN staff in August, and made
> strong  
> > and well-researched recommendations. Our great work in Sydney
> – by  
> > all who attended and went up to the microphones to protest
> the IRT  
> > Report- was important too!
> >
> > According to Doug's testimony yesterday, ICANN will be
> sending the  
> > IP Clearinghouse and URS (UDRP replacement) to the GNSO for
> review!  
> > The Globally Protected Marks List appears to be gone
> completely!  
> > This is very good news... and an important future piece of
> work  
> > that we (NCUC) should start working on right away.
> >
> > That's the scoop from DC.
> > Best,
> > Kathy (Kleiman)
> > p.s. Sorry to miss the NCUC held at the same time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 
>