Congrats to Kathy and Konstantinos (the KKsquared) for their role in this!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:36 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Hearing in DC on New gTLDs yesterday
> 
> 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 ³The
> > Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on Competition.²
> >
> > 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. ³With almost 200 million registered domains today, it is hard to
> > see how choice is constrained in any meaningful way...² He said ICANN
> > should enable IDNs before expanding Latin gTLDs-- but only IDNs for
> > ³country-code domains controlled by governments.²
> >
> > 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]