Robin,
Thanks for the detailed background. It is great for the constituency
and for the noncommercial community that you have such a good handle on what is
happening and what needs to be done.
One thing you wrote below particularly resonates. Why bother to pass
a treaty when you can get ICANN to make global (and let me add biased,
one-sided, and pro-IP) policy? That's exactly where the UDRP comes from,
and other ICANN initiatives. Would that ICANN could stay solely in the
business of the technical and away from freedom of expression/intellectual
property matters, but it won't.
Thanks again for leading our response to this IPC proposal. I know
understand why you take it so seriously.
Best,
Kathy
Robin wrote:
One
thing is clear: ICANN is the ideal forum for these causes that can't
win
approval in a legitimate international treaty context. Why bother
with the difficulties of passing a treaty when one can easily get ICANN
to make global policy?