ALAC has not confirmed that they sign on into the letter. They are consulting their members. We will know it, early tomorrow...... On Jun 25, 2009, at 12:17 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> __________________ __________________ >>>> >>>> __________________ __________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>