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?