Hearing in DC on New gTLDs yesterday

[Mary Wong]

Although Kathy and Konstantinos met with ICANN staff in their personal
capacities, their previous work on trademark protection and new gTLDs
formed the basis for NCUC's position as well as our collaborative
statement with ALAC regarding the IRT's recommendations. Given the
demands on everyone's volunteer time due to the increased GNSO workload
- and here, a thank you to everyone who's volunteered or joined a
working group! - it's good to know they are continuing to work on the
issues.
 
The GNSO Council has not yet received formal notification of the
specific recommendations upon which community input is likely to be
sought. I'll be sure to inform everyone once that information comes in,
because it will be necessary to engage and discuss the possibility of
crafting workable solutions, hopefully through consensus, in that
forum.
 
Finally - and please know that I am not trying to be negative here - it
was probably fortuitous for NCUC that the IRT discussions took place
amidst enhanced sensitivity on ICANN's parts in relation both to
"external" concerns (e.g. the JPA) and more "internal" pressures (e.g.
the GNSO and SG transition). In this regard, perceptions, relationships
and working across "party lines" will be critical as we launch the new
NCSG and negotiate its final charter. As I said on the constituency call
yesterday, I (again) urge everyone to refrain from framing/describing
any of the issues on which NCUC may take positions as battles,
victories, fights or any other language that perpetuates an image of our
constituency as constantly combative.
 
Of course, there will be (and there has been) times when we will need
to defend our stand as persuasively, strongly and broadly as possible
(and the misunderstandings over the NCSG Charter is one such example). I
just think that we will be much more effective - both on such issues as
well as more generally within ICANN-land - if we are generally watchful
in choosing the language we use in public.
 
Not everyone will agree with me on this, and I am not trying to finger
anyone or any particular incident - this is just my own personal opinion
after a year in the ICANN trenches!
 
Best,
Mary  
 
 
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> 9/24/2009 2:36 PM >>>
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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090924/fbf271a4/attachment.html>