Hi All,
To comment upon Mary, Milton and Robin's postings
of today, I sincerely believe that, whatever the
terms - harsh, tough, gentle or mild - that NCUC
members use to defend their stance, what matters
is not the tone but the substance. Good
substance is what makes good policy:
well-researched arguments and irreproachable
fact-based assertions.
Kathy and Konstantinos' work, for example, is
there to remind us that, when the NCUC is
successful, it is because of that resilient and
unrelenting effort, which ultimately pays off.
Great work on the GPML front. Wish you a
successful advocacy in Seoul.
Best regards,
Cedric
---
>Thanks Kathy for this update, it is really helpful. Unfortunately I was not
>able to be in Washington (although I would have loved to) but I have heard
>the transcripts of the testimonies.
>Kathy is correct, we have won a big fight here. The fact that the most
>dangerous piece of the IRT - the GPML - looks like its going, is a big
>victory. The other two things will go to the GNSO and that is something we
>need to take advantage of. we have the ideas in place as well as innovative
>solutions - we really do have, what I believe is a very good argument with
>both the URS and the Clearinghouse.
>Trademark owners at this stage keep on repeating the same argument, while we
>come forward with novel and balanced solutions. Richard Heath's testimony at
>least is a repetition of the IRT arguments - in our meeting back in August,
>we managed to make Brent and Doug see that many of the IRT's arguments
>(repeated by INTA) do not fall within the remit of intellectual property
>much less trademark law.
>So, I think, Seoul will be a good chance for all of us to repeat the success
>of Sydney. Much more work is needed but we have what I believe is the
>groundwork - and this is great.
>
>Best
>KK
>
>On 24/09/2009 15:36, "Kathy Kleiman" <[log in to unmask]> 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!
>
>--
>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: [log in to unmask]
--
Cedric Laurant, Esq.
<[log in to unmask]> - Skype: cedrichl
http://www.linkedin.com/in/cedriclaurant
|
