It is very good news! Kickin' A! :-) Seth -----Original Message----- From: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:36:17 -0700 Subject: Re: Hearing in DC on New gTLDs yesterday > Thanks, Kathy, for that update on the hearing yesterday (I've > been > looking for a copy of the audio of that hearing with no luck so > far). > > That is also great to hear the news about the changes being > made to > the IRT (like dropping GPML) and sending some parts of that > back to > the GNSO for community input. That is what we asked for in > Sydney > (and now we have to do that work which we asked for) :-) > > Thank you! > Robin > > > On Sep 24, 2009, at 7:36 AM, Kathy Kleiman 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 yesterday, 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! > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask] > > > >