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

 

__________________                                                                                                
__________________

__________________                                                                                                
__________________