Kathy, is the final version of the alac-ncuc statement available already?
--c.a.
Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> __________________
> __________________
>
> __________________
> __________________
>
>
>
>
>
|
