The following text was read to the Record at the Public Session at the Sydney ICANN Meeting 35 Thursday 25th June 2009. Please also see transcript of this session for more details.
The At-Large Community, the At-Large Advisory Committee and the Non-Commercial Users Constituency of ICANN are on record as strongly supporting the creation of new gTLDs. With respect to the Final IRT Report, those members of the At-Large Advisory Committee and representatives of certain At-Large Structures present in Sydney join the NCUC in making the following statement:
The process to move forward with changes to the Draft Applicant's Guidebook requires the legitimacy of full community participation and full transparency. In the case of the IRT Report, we had neither transparency nor openness.
The IRT Report and its recommendations harm the interests of domain name registrants and Internet end users, and consequently we must raise our serious concerns to the bulk of its recommendations.
To be more specific:
- The Globally Protected Marks List – the GPML database- is a matter well beyond ICANN's scope and its core competence. It presumes to be able to resolve an issue that continues to divide full-time trademark experts.
- The attempt to create the GPML has already revealed numerous substantial challenges; its development has the strong potential to delay, rather than to speed, the implementation of new gTLDs.
- The GPML takes no consideration of the actual limits of rights and protections allowed to trademarks. In the real world, trademark owners apply for a trademark in a specific class of goods and services, and their use is bound to that class or classes and subject to territorial and other well known recognized limitations. In particular, trademark law does not regulate non-commercial speech. By protecting a string of letters in all new gTLDs, the GPML would extend trademarks into new gTLDs far beyond the bounds of their class of goods and services, far beyond existing national laws and international treaties.
- We have serious issues with the Uniform Rapid Suspension Service (URS) as proposed. For instance, the URS mechanism subverts conventional UDRP practice as it gives entirely insufficient time for notice to the registrant of the pending dispute. Thus, the registrant is unfairly limited in his/her right of response and the process is missing the fundamental principle of due process.
- We are opposed to the IRT proposal´s policy recommendation to move to a Thick Whois without doing a privacy analysis, nor taking into account national laws nor International Privacy Standards, such as 1980 OECD Guidelines, the Privacy Convention 108 and the EU Data Protection Directive.
Overall, we wish the result were different. We wish the IRT had delivered a balanced proposal for the protection of trademarks and privacy. But the product delivered is far outside the scope and core competence of ICANN, and outside the bounds of trademark and privacy law.
So say we all!
Carlton Samuels
The University of the West Indies At-Large Structure
contributed by carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm on 2009-07-07 18:25:30 GMT
I endorse personally and as LACRALO Chair this statement. Also, put specific enphasys in Carlos Aguirre´s proposal which was made at the comments following this link: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_of_the_alac_on_the_irt_s_final_report_al_alac_st_0609_1
Andres Piazza
LACRALO Chair
—
I agree with what Andres Piazza, and also the proposal of Carlos Aguirre.
Alberto Soto
Director IIISI
contributed by asoto@ibero-americano.org on 2009-07-07 22:12:37 GMT
—
Thanks for share about <a href="https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?joint_statement_on_the_irt_report_from_alac_and_ncuc">^^^^^^^^^'Joint Statement on the IRT Report From ALAC and NCUC'</a>
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2010-06-21 08:31:39 GMT
