when announced during the board meeting and in
comments by directors, it sounded like a pretty
open call. Note Jennings' comment. Just need
some appropriate volunteers.
Adam
Transcript
<http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/transcript-board-meeting-06mar09-en.txt>
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Any opposed? Abstentions? Carried unanimously.
Thank you. Now, another exciting issue we've
been discussing here in Mexico has been the
intellectual property protection issues around
the introduction of new gTLDs. Rita, can you
take us through the draft resolution on this,
please?
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Sure, Peter. And this
is a resolution, just for everyone in the
audience, that is indicative of the board
listening to some of the comments that we have
received this week.
Whereas, based on the public comment submissions
received regarding new gTLD draft applicant
guidebook, ICANN staff has determined that the
implementation issues involving trademark
protection need additional community input and
analysis. These issues exist today within the
existing gTLDs.
Whereas, members of the community with knowledge
and expertise in this area have proposed a way to
synthesize the comments received in this area,
and, with input from the broader community,
including WIPO, propose solutions to the staff on
these issues in a timely manner.
Whereas the board recognizes that resolution of
these issues would be beneficial to the
introduction of new gTLDs, it is, therefore,
resolved, that the board requests the GNSO's
intellectual property constituency, in
consultation with staff, to convene an
implementation recommendation team comprised of
an internationally diverse group of persons with
knowledge, expertise, and experience in the
fields of trademark, consumer protection, or
competition law, and the interplay of trademarks
and the domain name system to develop and propose
solutions to the overarching issues of trademark
protection in connection with the introduction of
new gTLDs.
It is further resolved that the implementation
recommendation team will be comprised principally
are from the organizations and persons that
proposed such solutions in the public comment
period on the first draft applicant guidebook,
and the implementation recommendation team would
use the solutions proposed in the public comments
as its starting point for development.
The board directs the implementation
recommendation team to solicit input from the
interested constituencies prior to its first
session to ensure broad community input at the
outset of its work.
The board further directs (1) staff to provide a
dedicated staff person and additional staff
resources as staff determines to facilitate the
work of the implementation recommendation team
and (2) reasonable travel support be provided to
up to 15 members of the implementation
recommendation team for the purpose of conducting
two face-to-face meetings in hub cities.
The board further requests that the
implementation recommendation team distribute its
draft report by the 24th of April, 2009, to
interested members of the community for comment,
and propose a final report to be published no
later than the 24th of May, 2009, for
consideration by the ICANN community at the
Sydney meeting.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I second that motion.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Seconded Bruce. Is
there any discussion about this resolution?
Bruce? Wendy?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Peter. One of the
things I observed this week in particular is a
growing willingness within the GNSO for people to
work constructively together. And we've seen
that on topics like the RAA and also in some of
the discussions on geographic names. The other
thing that's been happening this week is that
people have been proposing various solutions to
some of the trademark problems, particularly at
the second, level and I think what this motion
does is support that momentum in providing some
ICANN resources to assist those various people
that have got solid proposals, assist those that
made submissions in the public comment process to
really try to converge their various approaches
to either one or maybe two alternative solutions
that could be considered by the community.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Bruce. I
have Wendy and then Katim. Wendy?
>>WENDY SELTZER: Thank you, Peter. I see
this resolution as recognizing that members of
the community have expressed concerns about the
new gTLD process. And so we are providing them
with institutional support to help refine the
criticisms into implementable proposals that
could make them more comfortable with the process
and, at the same time, to vet those proposals by
the community for responses from the other side.
So I don't see this resolution as an endorsement
of any particular position, but as an opportunity
for the community to fully develop its positions
so that they are bringing to us fully formed
proposals which we can then act upon. And so I
invite -- and I hope that members of the
community will be -- of other communities will be
consulted early in the process, as is
recommended, and will have full opportunities to
analyze proposals that come out of this working
group to provide us with their views as well.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Wendy. Katim?
>>KATIM TOURAY: Yes, Peter. I'd like to
express my delight at this resolution.
Especially by virtue -- excuse me, of the fact
that it is the result of a process in which I
think a lot of people in the community managed to
turn what was potentially a very adversarial and
explosive situation into a constructive
engagement. And, of course, the end result is
this resolution that we are considering here.
Indeed, I'd like to encourage other parties,
other constituencies to really take this as a
template, most especially in regards to
suggestions about the need to look at -- excuse
me -- the need to look at pricing for the new
gTLDs. The point I'm trying to make sure is that
I encourage those people, like myself from the
developing countries, and those from the
nonprofit sector, to come together as the
intellectual property constituents have done and
come up with concrete proposals that the board
can consider as to what we can do to move forward
on the issue of reviewing the issue of the
pricing structure for the new gTLDs. Again,
thanks very much all of you for this really
wonderful process.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Katim. Dennis?
>>DENNIS JENNINGS: Thank you, Peter. I'm
particularly pleased to see the use of the phrase
"internationally diverse group of persons" in the
resolution. Because my impression has been that
much of the discussion has been driven by big
business and west -- or North American
intellectual property interests. And I think
we've heard other interests speak during the
week. And I'm very pleased to see that because I
think there are other dimensions that need to be
taken into account. So thank you to everybody
here for getting that in to the resolution.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Dennis.
The -- Suzanne, You wanted to speak? Janis.
>>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, chair. I wanted
to say, for the record, that in the GAC comments
on the applicants guidebook, we attach a great
deal of importance to protection of intellectual
property. We encourage to look for solutions
which would help limit need for defense of
registrations in the new gTLDs, but equally to
provide appropriate mechanisms to prevent
fraudulent registrations. So -- and I want to,
on behalf of the GAC, congratulate with this
proposed way forward.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Janis. Anyone else? Steve G.
>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Just to briefly note that
all this really transpired because these issues
were brought up in meetings here. And we were
able to react to them and, you know, hopefully
help to solve the issues.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Rita, back to you.
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thank you. I guess I
just want to say -- echo what my colleagues have
said, which is I think we're very pleased that
there seems to be broad support for this proposal
and that members of the community have come
together to try to determine solutions to these
issues. I just want to emphasize to everyone the
board's view here, which is this is not being put
together -- and we are hopeful that this is not
going to be a situation where there's going to be
overreaching or there's going to be a stagnation
of the process or that this is just going to be
about big business here. We really, really want
this to be solutions, to be consultative with
various constituencies, and to give us real and
collaborative and practical ways to move forward.
And we're all, actually, very hopeful that this
is going to be the case and very much trust in
this process.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Rita. Can
I put the resolution then? All those in favor,
please raise their hands. [Show of hands]
>> Any opposed? Abstentions? Carried unanimously. Thank you.
>Hi there,
>
>The trademark lobby has succeeded in convincing
>the ICANN Board it needs special treatments in
>the introduction of new gtlds (see below ICANN
>press release).
>
>We will need to ensure that this new "Team"
>includes a balanced perspective and not only
>trademark extremists who will over-state the
>rights of trademark holders and understate the
>rights of ordinary individuals or others who
>have a lawful right to discuss trademarked
>products and companies.
>
>Has there been any discussion of this IRT on the
>GNSO Counsel? How do we make sure that balanced
>perspectives make their way onto the new "ITR
>Team"?
>
>Thanks,
>Robin
>
>
>
>
>Trademark Issues to be Addressed Ahead of Internet Address Expansion
>
>Discussions Show Progress
>
>6 March 2009
>
>Mexico City, MexicoŠ March 7, 2009: ICANN's 34th
>International public meeting in Mexico City has
>drawn to a close after the organization's Board
>of Directors approved the establishment by staff
>of an Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT)
>comprised of an internationally diverse group of
>people to develop and propose solutions to the
>over-arching issue of trademark protection in
>connection with the introduction of new generic
>top level domain names (gTLDs).
>
>"The Board has clearly heard and believes
>strongly that the concerns of trademark holders
>must be addressed before this process is opened
>for applications," said Peter Dengate Thrush,
>Chairman of the Board of Directors of ICANN.
>"The establishment of this team, is an attempt
>to get proposed solutions from the people with
>skill in trademark protection and other issues."
>
>The IRT will be comprised of people who put
>forward solutions in the first public comment
>period on the new GTLD Applicant Guidebook. The
>IRT has been asked to draft a report by 24 April
>for comment and to produce a final report no
>later than 24 May so it can be considered at
>ICANN's Sydney meeting in June.
>
>The Mexico City meeting was also saw the release
>of a study that pointed to the public benefit of
>new gTLDs.
>
><http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04mar09-en.htm>The
>study, commissioned by ICANN, was conducted by
>University of Chicago Economics Professor Dennis
>Carlton. "The likely effect of ICANN's proposal
>is to increase output, lower price and increase
>innovation," said Carlton. "I conclude that
>ICANN's proposed framework for introducing new
>TLDs is likely to improve consumer welfare by
>facilitating entry and creating new competition."
>
>In other notable decisions, the Board discussed
>the substance of changes to
><http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pdf>the
>Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) which
>include:
>
>New enforcement tools new Registrar Audit and
>a group liability provision amongst other things.
>Registrant protections shining a light on the risks of proxy registration.
>Consistent minimum standards of service for all registrars.
>A modernizing of the agreement to get up-to-date with the domain name market.
>These changes were unanimously agreed upon by
>the Generic Names Supporting Organization
>(GNSO). The Board asked that the changes be
>published for public comment for no less than
>thirty days with a commitment to act on approval
>of the amendments at the earliest opportunity.
>
>"This maintains a policy of timely, accurate and
>unrestricted public access to Whois data but
>also adds new enforcement tools which fits well
>with ICANN's increased emphasis on compliance"
>said Paul Twomey, President and CEO of ICANN.
>
>Attendees of the Mexico City conference also
>discussed the impacts of
><http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/>Internationalized
>Domain Names (IDN), which will allow internet
>uses to enter internet addresses in languages
>other than English.
>
>Further, implementation of the upgrade of the
>Internet's protocol to
><http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/factsheet-ipv6-26oct07.pdf>IPv6,
>which will vastly expand the number of available
>Internet addresses was also a topic of
>discussion. Estimates are that under the current
>protocol (IPv4) the number of available internet
>addresses will be exhausted in 3 to 4 years.
>
>Finally, ICANN Board Chairman Peter Dengate
>Thrush thanked the Internet Mexican Association
>(AMIPCI) for helping to coordinate and host the
>Mexico City Conference.
>
>ICANN's next international public meeting is
>scheduled to take place in Sydney, Australia,
>21- 26 June, 2009.
>
>
>
>
>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>http://www.ipjustice.org
>e:
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
|
