Tx you Cedric!
Kathy & Konstantinos
> 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 ye

>>> sterday, 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]
>
>