repost with attachment.
>  Hi Baudouin,
> At long last, I am so pleased to share with you a French translation 
> of the Joint Statement on the IRT Report by ALAC and the NCUC -- 
> translated by Patrick Vende Walle of ALAC, one of the statement's 
> co-writers along with me.  Thank you for sharing it with different 
> platforms and networks in the DR Congo and Central Africa.
>
> Please consider submitting comments in French to the IRT written 
> comment email address -- [log in to unmask]
> The deadline is this Monday, and even short comments in support of the 
> NCUC/ALAC Joint Statement and its principles will make a difference!
>
> All, this is a side-by-side English/French translation in case you 
> would like to see the Joint Statement again. Robin and Cheryl had the 
> entire room's full attention when they presented it!
> Best,
> Kathy
>> Kathy,
>>  
>> thanks to share this draft. It's very important and I wish if 
>> possible to have a french version allowing me to share it among 
>> different plat form and network in DR Congo and Central Africa by 
>> national and sub regional mailing list.  
>> I tried to do a substantial translation but I have fear to go 
>> out understanding content.
>> congratulations for this work.
>>  
>> Baudouin
>>
>> 2009/6/23 Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask] 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>
>>     Hi All,
>>     For discussion purposes a little later in our meeting today, here
>>     is a DRAFT Joint Statement on the IRT Report between NCUC and ALAC.
>>     It would be very nice if, at the Board Public Forum on Thursday,
>>     we could go up together with ALAC to make a strong joint statement.
>>     That would make the Board wake up! :-)
>>
>>     Best,
>>     Kathy
>>     (below in text and attached in Word)
>>
>>     DRAFT
>>
>>     Joint Statement on the DIRT Report
>>
>>     From ALAC and NCUC
>>
>>      
>>
>>      
>>
>>     The At-Large Community, ALAC and the Non-Commercial Users
>>     Constituency of ICANN strongly support the creation of new gTLDs.
>>     Having said that, the process to move forward with changes to the
>>     DAG Guidebook requires the legitimacy of full community
>>     participation and full transparency.
>>
>>     In the case of the IRT Report, we had neither transparency nor
>>     openness. The IRT Report and its recommendations harm the
>>     interests of domain name Registrants and Internet end users, and
>>     consequently we must object to the vast bulk of its recommendations.
>>      
>>
>>     To be more specific: 
>>
>>     1. The Globally Protected Marks List – the GPML database- is a
>>     matter well beyond ICANN's scope and its core competence. It
>>     presumes to be able to resolve an issue that even WIPO wrestles
>>     with. Clearly the creation of the GPML, if even possible, would
>>     cause enormous complexity. Instead of speeding up the process of
>>     creating new gTLDs, it would introduce delays that would last for
>>     years. But the creation of this list must take place outside of
>>     ICANN.
>>
>>     2. The GPML takes no consideration of the actual limits of rights
>>     and protections allowed to trademarks. In the real world,
>>     trademark owners apply for a trademark in a specific class of
>>     goods and services, and their use is bound to that class or
>>     classes. By protecting a string of letters in all new gTLDs, the
>>     GPML would extend trademarks into new gTLDs far beyond the bounds
>>     of their class of goods and services, far beyond existing
>>     national laws and internationatreaties.  
>>      
>>
>>     3. We have enormous problems with the Uniform Suspension Service
>>     (URS). The URS mechanism subverts conventional UDRP practice as
>>     it gives entirely insufficient time for notice to the registrant
>>     of the pending dispute. Thus, the registrant is unfairly limited
>>     in his/her right of response and the process is missing the
>>     fundamental principle of due process.
>>      
>>
>>     [ Kathy Note: This paragraph below seems to be somewhat
>>     controversial within ALAC. I think we will be dropping it. Don't
>>     worry, we'll include the statement in our comments -- if you all
>>     agree]
>>     4. ALAC and NCUC strongly object to the Thick Whois Registry. In
>>     mandating such, the IRT Committee did not address any of the
>>     privacy issues that arise from moving personal data from many
>>     countries with data protection laws, perhaps, to a single country
>>     without data protection. Does ICANN really want to be in a
>>     position in which it may be violating national laws?
>>
>>
>>     Overall, we wish the result were different. We wish the IRT had
>>     delivered a reasonable proposal for the protection of trademarks.
>>     But the product delivered is far outside the scope and core
>>     competence of ICANN, and outside the bounds of trademark law.
>>
>>     We can do better; we must do better before we move forward.
>>
>>     Consequently, NCUC and ALAC stand before this forum together in
>>     fundamental opposition to many of the IRT Results.
>>
>>      
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Signed [for sharing a written cop y of a floor statement with the
>>     Board]
>>
>>      
>>
>>     ALAC                                                                                                                    
>>     NCUC
>>
>>      
>>
>>     __________________                                                                                               
>>     __________________
>>
>>     __________________                                                                                               
>>     __________________
>>
>>      
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>> COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
>> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>> téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91
>> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571
>> email:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>> http://educticafrique.ning.com/
>