Tx you Cedric! Kathy & Konstantinos > Hi All, > > To comment upon Mary, Milton and Robin's postings of today, I > sincerely believe that, whatever the terms - harsh, tough, gentle or > mild - that NCUC members use to defend their stance, what matters is > not the tone but the substance. Good substance is what makes good > policy: well-researched arguments and irreproachable fact-based > assertions. > > Kathy and Konstantinos' work, for example, is there to remind us that, > when the NCUC is successful, it is because of that resilient and > unrelenting effort, which ultimately pays off. Great work on the GPML > front. Wish you a successful advocacy in Seoul. > > Best regards, > Cedric > --- >> Thanks Kathy for this update, it is really helpful. Unfortunately I >> was not >> able to be in Washington (although I would have loved to) but I have >> heard >> the transcripts of the testimonies. >> Kathy is correct, we have won a big fight here. The fact that the most >> dangerous piece of the IRT - the GPML - looks like its going, is a big >> victory. The other two things will go to the GNSO and that is >> something we >> need to take advantage of. we have the ideas in place as well as >> innovative >> solutions - we really do have, what I believe is a very good argument >> with >> both the URS and the Clearinghouse. >> Trademark owners at this stage keep on repeating the same argument, >> while we >> come forward with novel and balanced solutions. Richard Heath's >> testimony at >> least is a repetition of the IRT arguments - in our meeting back in >> August, >> we managed to make Brent and Doug see that many of the IRT's arguments >> (repeated by INTA) do not fall within the remit of intellectual property >> much less trademark law. >> So, I think, Seoul will be a good chance for all of us to repeat the >> success >> of Sydney. Much more work is needed but we have what I believe is the >> groundwork - and this is great. >> >> Best >> KK >> >> On 24/09/2009 15:36, "Kathy Kleiman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> I wanted to share a few thoughts on the hearing held by Congress on >>> New >>> gTLDs yesterday. Since I live here in Washington DC, I was able to hop >>> the Metro and go down to see it. It was called: Hearing on "The >>> Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on Competition." >>> >>> There were 4 witnesses who testified: Doug Brent for ICANN, Paul >>> Stahura >>> for eNom, Richard Heath for International Trademark Assoc., and Steve >>> DelBianco for NetChoice (a organization of Verisign and others). So, 2 >>> for new gTLDs (ICANN/eNom) and two against them (INTA/Netchoice-- >>> although NetChoice wants IDNs to move forward). >>> >>> Basically, the premise was that ICANN is not doing enough to >>> protect big >>> trademark owners, and who needs new gTLDs anyway? >>> >>> Doug Brent properly said that expansion of the root has been part of >>> ICANN's mission since the beginning. New gTLDs will help registrant >>> choice, competition generally, and serve the rest of the world with >>> IDNs. He said ICANN has had at least 3 studies on the New gTLD >>> program, >>> and that the additional studies being called for may or may not be >>> needed; ICANN is looking into it. But he said, rightly, that at some >>> point the studies have to stop and work to go forward. >>> >>> Brent also said that the policies and procedures for the new gTLDs >>> have >>> been in development at ICANN for years - and came up through the GNSO >>> process, with ICANN community involvement. He said that the process >>> has >>> worked. >>> >>> Richard Heath, from the International Trademark Association and the >>> UK, >>> said that new gTLDs are: linked to increased crime, threaten health >>> and >>> safety, tarnish existing trademarks, and are only being done to get >>> the >>> money from defensive registrations. (Wow!) >>> >>> Paul Stahura from eNom wants new gTLDs. He said that there is consumer >>> demand for new gTLDs, new gTLDs will create competition in price, >>> service, and offerings, and that is definitely time for ICANN to move >>> forward. He also noted later that to roll out IDNs without rolling out >>> new gTLDs in English would be unfair - to have a .BLOG in Chinese and >> > not in English, he argued, would be unfair to eNom and others. >>> >>> Steve DelBianco was interesting. He is a smooth Washington person and >>> obviously has testified many times. He represents NetChoice, a group >>> which includes VeriSign, and he said that no new gTLDs are needed >>> except >>> IDNs. "With almost 200 million registered domains today, it is hard to >>> see how choice is constrained in any meaningful way..." He said ICANN >> > should enable IDNs before expanding Latin gTLDs-- but only IDNs for >>> "country-code domains controlled by governments." >> > >>> One great piece of news that came out is that the work we (NCUC) did >>> over the summer is definitely helping shape the debate. As you know, >>> Konstantinos and I in Washington DC and Leslie in China had long >>> detailed meetings with ICANN staff in August, and made strong and >>> well-researched recommendations. Our great work in Sydney - by all who >>> attended and went up to the microphones to protest the IRT Report- was >> > important too! >>> >>> According to Doug's testimony ye >>> sterday, ICANN will be sending the IP >> > Clearinghouse and URS (UDRP replacement) to the GNSO for review! The >>> Globally Protected Marks List appears to be gone completely! This is >>> very good news... and an important future piece of work that we (NCUC) >>> should start working on right away. >>> >>> That's the scoop from DC. >>> Best, >>> Kathy (Kleiman) >>> p.s. Sorry to miss the NCUC held at the same time! >> >> -- >> 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] > >