Dear all, For your information: This is the view of Olivier on the IRT London meeting as posted on the ALAC list. Best Konstantinos -- Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Lecturer in Law, GigaNet Membership Chair, University of Strathclyde, The Lord Hope Building, 141 St. James Road, Glasgow, G4 0LT, UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 email: [log in to unmask] ------ Forwarded Message > From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:27:38 +0100 > To: Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]> > Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Fw: New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009 > > FYI > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:56 PM > Subject: New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009 > > New gTLD programme outreach events > London meeting / 15 July 2009 > > Panel: > Fabricio Vayra - Counsel, Intellectual Property - Time Warner > Stacey King - Intellectual Property Lawyer - Richemont International > David Taylor - Partner - Lovells > Ellen B. Shankman - Attorney at Law, Ellen B. Shankman & Associates > Jonathan Cohen - Senior Partner - Shapiro Cohen > Jeff Neuman - Vice President - Law & Policy, NeuStar > Eun-Joo Min - Head of Legal Development Section - WIPO Arbitration & Mediation > Center > Richard Tindall - Senior VP or Registry - Demand Media > > I had breakfast with Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Lecturer in IT & Commercial > law at Univ of Strathclyde, who led the charge on behalf of NCUC in London, as > well as with Richard Tindall (see above). We discussed the points of the IRT > report, point by point. Richard is, among the panel, the only person who does > not agree with all recommendations of the IRT, although he believes we should > not completely reject all points. > > Starting at 9:00am, the morning was spent listening to presentations from > ICANN (Introduction to New gTLD Program) and trademark protection > presentations. Presentations are available elsewhere - just the standard blurb > which we have seen many times already. Since those ran longer than expected, > questions were only taken from the floor at 12:10. Only 2 people managed to > speak - 2 usual suspects which we all know. Whilst logged in online in the > adobe connect room, I asked Peter (Dengate Thrush - who was not present > physically) to ask his staff to be more stringent on mic time. This was done > in the afternoon. > > Much discussion was undertaken over lunch, with the general mood of the > participants whom I spoke to being the the GPML would not pass, the IP > Clearinghouse would be in doubt, the URS would need changes if it were to > pass, and unknown interest for the rest of the recommendations. > That said, Konstantinos told me he spoke with other people who favoured the > GPML, the IP Clearinghouse etc. > > Every participant was given a set of sheets, one of each colour, asking a > specific questions of the type: > IP ClearingHouse proposal: > - I broadly support this proposal > - I broadly do not support this proposal > Comment: > > Forms could be given in anonymously, so I suspect we'll only know the reality > once these are processed by ICANN staff. As in any such discussions, I suspect > some participants say something in public and vite differently anonymously. > > The afternoon started with more comment period, and thankfully there was a lot > of time allocated to comments. > Konstantinos Komaitis wanted to read a statement from NCUC but was rudely cut > short by Jeff Neuman since, according to him, it was just the same thing was > what had been said in New York. Konstantinos replied that he was repeating it > for the sake of the audience in London to hear it, and Jeff asked him to speed > this up. On the whole, and although my judgement might be biased in a way, I > think that this did not reflect well on Jeff Neuman's standing. > Werner Staub from CORE asked for proceedings in getting the gTLD process to be > speeded up. It appears that they just see the IRT as another stumbling block > and are ready to say "yes yes yes" as long as they can go ahead with creating > new gTLDs. Several other participants defended their small piece of pie, not > really caring about the general user / registrant. > Thankfully, we had the presence of John Levine among us, who took the mic to > very eloquently tell the panel what he did not agree with. > (I had been told privately before the meeting that it was not quantity but > quality of response/respondent that mattered - so John's presence was a real > boost - thanks John! ) > > Speaking to some ICANN staff & other particpants afterwards, I believe that > the user's point of view is well understood. It was also mentioned publicly > that sadly not enough users were represented there, and I pointed out to > Fabricio Vayra (with whom I spoke to along with Konstantinos Komaitis) that > the IRT team would have avoided embarrassment had it included representatives > from At-Large & NCUC. He still believes hard as steel that the recommendations > presented by the IRT team are benefitting the users as much as brand owners. > He also agrees with the representative from WIPO (Eun-Joo Min) that costs for > the trademark-related proposals (IP clearinghouse, GPML etc.) should be borne > not only by trademark owners but also by everyone else. We made him understand > that we should agree to disagree on this. > > Personal notes > > Ultimately, all points of view are known by everyone now. It is clear that the > IRT team will stick to its guns and we'll stick to ours. It is obvious that we > live in parrallel worlds. Furthermore, whilst the panellists were introduced > as acting independently of their job assignments, speaking to each panellists > in private, it is plain obvious that their professional function put them in a > position where their employer/clients put pressure on them. I understand that > they did a lot of work but this work was not independent. > > That's it for the time being. I hope it gives a fair idea of what went on. No > doubt others will also write a little review of the day as well. If I receive > more info, I'll forward/cross-post it to the relevant lists. > > Any questions: don't hesitate to ask! > > Warm regards, > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > ------ End of Forwarded Message