Hi Kathy, Great Speech! All the best tomorrow, Konstantinos. Alex On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Kathy Kleiman<[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi All, > Yesterday was the second public consultation by ICANN of the new gTLD plan > (the first being in Sydney). > A good half the day was devoted to the IRT Report- the Intellectual Property > Constituency's plan to expand trademark > rights in the new gTLDs. I was there as our NCUC representative. > > We (NCUC and friends) opened the day early with a breakfast I organized for > groups and individuals concerned about the IRT proposals. > It was a great group which included representatives of New Yorkers for Fair > Use, Internet Commerce Association (business registrants), eNom, the > chairman of the Registrars Constituency, John Berryhill (a registrant > attorney) and even a reporter for the New York Times. The breakfast was > sponsored by NCUC, ICA, eNom and Tucows. It was good fun and a great > discussion. > > Our group then went into the IRT session next door at 9am. We heard the IRT > Team report (again) and WIPO for hours. Only the newly-added report of > Richard Tindal of eNom with some great concerns and good ideas for major > changes was a highlight. When the microphones finally opened for questions, > not until after lunch, we jumped up to raise our objections. I got there > first. I jumped up and read the speech below. Others followed with lots of > concerns about noncommercial domain name registrants, individuals and > commercial registrants. I am happy to say our voice was heard loud and > clear. I think our concerns truly resonated. > > Below is my speech which might of interest. Good luck to Konstantinos, our > NCUC representative, and anyone who can join him tomorrow AM in London. May > the force be with you! > Kathy > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Good morning, > > My name is Kathryn Kleiman and I represent a group not even listed on the > descriptions of attendees in the ICANN signup for today – I represent > registrants. > > In my group, ICANN’s Noncommercial Users Constituency, our 102 members > register their domain names on behalf of human rights groups, public > interest groups, community and political groups worldwide. Some members risk > their lives and livelihoods to post content about corruption, extortion and > malfeasance. It is some of the very highest uses of the Internet. > > Yet, our domain names, and those we register in the future, will be at risk > under the IRT proposal. I have been asked to share 3 quick points: > > 1. The IRT proposal provides for only one type of abuse when there are two. > The IRT fears trademark infringement, but not trademark lawyer abuse. Every > day, trademark lawyers threaten domain names. Under the guise of trademark > infringement, they drive out new competitors, squash those who investigate > or criticize them, or simply try to snatch away a good domain name they did > not think to register. The next group must dig from the deep expertise on > both side of the abuse aisle; the next version must mitigate both abusive > experiences. > > 2. The IRT proposal goes far beyond the two limits which should be its > bounds, that ICANN is a technical body with a limited scope and mission, and > that trademark law as it exists under every law is bounded by protections > for fair use and freedom of expression and the right to simply use language. > > For example, > > A. The IP Clearinghouse takes ICANN into the job of global rights protection > and beyond its mission as a technical manager of domain names. For ICANN to > enter this field would require it to become a trademark office, an examiner > of the registered and unregistered marks being entered. For ICANN not be > such an examiner, would create a gigantic database of unverified > intellectual property which will be misused not only again against future > domain name registrants but far outside the scope of ICANN as well. > > There may well be a need for this type of service, but the market has shown > that it can and will provide it. This is one need the market should be > allowed to meet. > > B. The Globally Protected marks List brings ICANN into an area even WIPO > dares not tread. There is no international consensus on globally famous > marks, and no list of such marks prepared by WIPO nor any other > international organization. It is beyond the scope and mission of ICANN to > be the first down this path. Further, the GPML proposal goes awry by > protecting these trademarks, not as marks for certain goods and services, > but as strings of characters protected across all new gTLDs, regardless of > use or relevance. This list will remove from the domain name dictionary > basic words, including Apple, Sun, Time and People. That ICANN cannot allow. > > The Uniform Rapid Suspension Service is among the most dangerous provisions. > It will replace the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy with a faster, cheaper > and fundamentally more unfair process. It strips UDRP of those few aspects > that made it fair, including strong requirements for notice, and a > reasonable response time. Domain name registrants will lose their domain > names and website speech before they ever know a challenge has been filed. > As many said in their comments, this is a case of UDRP reform, but an > invalid UDRP replacement. > > We have strong objections to the thick whois and post-delegation dispute > mechanism, but time grows short. > > Overall, the IRT Report includes only one half of trademark law – its > rights, but not its limits or fair use protections. The free and fair use of > language requires this balance – and the free and fair of domain names too. > > For Registrants, those at the base of the ICANN Pyramid, those registering > domain name for years into the future, we have to get these rules right, and > we must make them fair. > > > > Thank you. > > >