Great text indeed. Congratulations to the writers and to the speakers. Shouldn't it be sent around to our various constituencies? Divina Le 24/06/09 16:17, « Milton L Mueller » <[log in to unmask]> a écrit : >> 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 proposal´s 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 >>