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 > > > > __________________ > __________________ > > __________________ > __________________ > > > > >