Very good statement, Kathy. I hope you get a chance to make it clear that ALAC and NCUC and indeed most normal registrants are united on this matter. > -----Original Message----- > From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC- > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:42 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Proposed IRT Joint Statement with ALAC > > > Kathy, is the final version of the alac-ncuc statement available > already? > > > > --c.a. > Good morning Carlos and NCUC, > Yes, the ALAC-NCUC statement that the wonderful group of ALAC and NCUC > negotiated last night is available. > This draft is now being reviewed by ALAC. It is very similar to the one > we circulated in NCUC yesterday - with clearer privacy > language courtesy of Katiza, and a number of general edits from ALAC. > Overall, the key points are the same, and it was > a good and constructive joint editing session yesterday: > > JOINT STATEMENT (still in draft) > > The At-Large Community, the At-Large Advisory Committee 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 Draft Applicant's 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 continues to divide full-time trademark > experts. > > 2. The attempt to create the GPML has already revealed numerous > substantial challenges; its development has the strong potential to > delay, rather than to speed, the implementation of new gTLDs. > > 3. 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 and subject to territorial > and other well known recognized limitations. In particular, trademark > law does not regulate non-commercial speech. 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 international treaties. > > > 3. We have serious issues with the Uniform Rapid Suspension Service > (URS) as proposed. For instance, 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. > > > 4. We are opposed to the IRT proposalīs policy recommendation to move to > a Thick Whois without doing a privacy analysis, nor taking into account > national laws nor International Privacy Standards, such as 1980 OECD > Guidelines, the Privacy Convention 108 and the EU Data Protection > Directive. > > Overall, we wish the result were different. We wish the IRT had > delivered a balanced proposal for the protection of trademarks and > privacy. But the product delivered is far outside the scope and core > competence of ICANN, and outside the bounds of trademark and privacy law. > > We can do better; we must do better. In its current form, the IRT > proposal is unacceptable. > > > > > > > Signed > > > > ALAC > > NCUC > > > > __________________ > > __________________ > > __________________ > > __________________* > > > > > > 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> __________________ __________________ > >> > >> __________________ __________________ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >