Congrats to Kathy and Konstantinos (the KKsquared) for their role in this! > -----Original Message----- > From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC- > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:36 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Hearing in DC on New gTLDs yesterday > > 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 ³The > > Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on Competition.² > > > > 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. ³With almost 200 million registered domains today, it is hard to > > see how choice is constrained in any meaningful way...² He said ICANN > > should enable IDNs before expanding Latin gTLDs-- but only IDNs for > > ³country-code domains controlled by governments.² > > > > 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! > > -- > 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]