All,
Konstantinos and I wanted to share some notes from a meeting we had with 
ICANN Senior Staff Kurt Pritz and Doug Brent last Friday.
It was a fascinating and very worthwhile meeting. It took place in 
Washington DC, and Konstantinos joined us by videoconferencing.

Konstantinos and I wanted to share with ICANN some of our views as 
experts in the field who have analyzed the IRT Report closely and 
consulted widely with NCUC members, ALAC, Registrars, Registrant 
Attorneys and IRT members. Konstantinos wrote his dissertation on the 
UDRP and its impact inside and outside of ICANN, and is currently 
writing a book on Domain Name Regulation. I have represented registrants 
in domain name disputes since 1996. We made sure everyone knew we were 
there in our personal capacities.

We discussed why were there (3 reasons):

A. We feel there are important voices not heard in full in the IRT 
discussion -- including noncommercial, educational, research, academic, 
entrepreneur, organizational, hobbyist and small businesses.

B. We support new gTLDs - New gTLds promise to open up bold new 
opportunities for speech and communication, diversity and distinction. 
The same words, used in different contexts online, will easily serve 
different markets and community segments.

C. We feel Innovative Solutions are critical to getting the rules right 
for new gTLDs - Our hope: that the new rules proposed for trademark 
protection in the new gTLDs reflect the balance of trademark law... and 
do not extend into the new gTLDs an artificial scarcity and a protection 
of unrelated legacy rights.


We discussed trademark law and traditional limits and protections of 
free speech, fair use and the right of all to use basic dictionary words 
and their own surnames.


We then provided ideas for improvement:

(A) A few private, regional Trademark Clearinghouses, rather than a 
single monolithic clearinghouse of vague and unverified "intellectual 
property."

(B) Deep GPML criticisms and deep concerns that the results of ICANN 
creating such a list (when even WIPO cannot) will expand trademark 
rights beyond any existing bounds, both in ICANN and outside of ICANN. 
There is no global consensus on famous marks.

(C)  Close URS analysis -- we showed how many of the concerns driving 
the creation of the URS, a completely parallel system to the UDRP (and 
one which replace it) can best we addressed by other means -- namely, 
criminal law for fraud, phishing, fake medicines, etc. There are already 
criminal takedown procedures in place- and ones in the process of being 
created!

We suggested that URS be modified by:

   1.

      Convening a full UDRP forum to address everyone's issues and
      concerns on a fair playing field;

   2.

      Adopt suggestion of Registrant Attorney Paul Keating, namely,
      revise the UDRP for new gTLDs to allow Respondents to decide if
      they want to defend the domain name, or transfer it immediately.

   3.

      Narrow the URS to the real concern of the large trademark owners:
      serial cybersquatting, including the registration of hundreds of
      variations of well-known marks for the purpose of pay-per-click
      monetizing of the value.


Attached are three mini-White Papers that Dr. Komaitis and I wrote and 
shared. They are about the IRT requests, their dangers and problems, and 
options/innovative solutions explored in greater detail.

Kurt and Doug listened carefully, and engaged us with some excellent 
questions. We urge you to follow-up with the ICANN staff and share your 
ideas and concerns -- and anything you might agree with in these papers!


Best,
Kathy and Konstantinos