June 2009 - APAC-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Draft Jioint Statement on the IRT Report
by At-Large Staff 24 Jun '09

24 Jun '09

Dear APRALO Members: Below you will find the draft text of a proposed joint statement. A newer draft will be forthcoming, however, the changes are expected to be restricted to changing "ALAC" to something like "those ALAC members and certain ALS representatives attending the Sydney meeting" to reflect the fact that the At-Large community as a whole has not been able to review the text and comment on it, so making it an official ALAC statement was not in order. Cheryl has asked if you could review this and let the list know if you have any issues with the text. Time is short, though, as the idea being discussed is to present this at the Public Forum in Sydney tomorrow morning. For those of you who wish to read the report to which this statement is related, you may find that at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm. Unfortunately at the present time the report is available in English only. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ALAC-Internal] Draft ioint Statement on the IRT Report From ALAC and NCUC Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:24:13 +1000 From: Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> Reply-To: ALAC Internal List <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Organization: My very own private disorganization To: ALAC Internal List <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> * Here is the result of the work today (tonight ?) of the joint ALAC/NCUC. All the ALAC members that were present in the room support the document. Could thiose who were not there state their position ? Thanks Patrick The At-Large Community, the At-Large Advisory Committee and the Non-Commercial Users Constituency of ICANN strongly support the creation of new gTLDs. Having said that, 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 object to the vast bulk of its recommendations. To be more specific: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. We can do better; we must do better. In its current form, the IRT proposal is unacceptable. Signed ALAC NCUC __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________* _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Draft Jioint Statement on the IRT Report
by Nick Ashton-Hart 24 Jun '09

24 Jun '09

Dear APRALO Members: Below you will find the draft text of a proposed joint statement. A newer draft will be forthcoming, however, the changes are expected to be restricted to changing "ALAC" to something like "those ALAC members and certain ALS representatives attending the Sydney meeting" to reflect the fact that the At-Large community as a whole has not been able to review the text and comment on it, so making it an official ALAC statement was not in order. Cheryl has asked if you could review this and let the list know if you have any issues with the text. Time is short, though, as the idea being discussed is to present this at the Public Forum in Sydney tomorrow morning. For those of you who wish to read the report to which this statement is related, you may find that at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm. Unfortunately at the present time the report is available in English only. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ALAC-Internal] Draft ioint Statement on the IRT Report From ALAC and NCUC Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:24:13 +1000 From: Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> Reply-To: ALAC Internal List <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Organization: My very own private disorganization To: ALAC Internal List <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> * Here is the result of the work today (tonight ?) of the joint ALAC/NCUC. All the ALAC members that were present in the room support the document. Could thiose who were not there state their position ? Thanks Patrick The At-Large Community, the At-Large Advisory Committee and the Non-Commercial Users Constituency of ICANN strongly support the creation of new gTLDs. Having said that, 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 object to the vast bulk of its recommendations. To be more specific: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. We can do better; we must do better. In its current form, the IRT proposal is unacceptable. Signed ALAC NCUC __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________* _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Summary of Gov Committee report on IDN ccTLD dot Nihon
by Izumi AIZU 24 Jun '09

24 Jun '09

Here attached is the summary of our Ministry of Communications Final Report on the new TLDs, focusing on IDN ccTLD introduction to Japan, .日本 We are working to create a new national body, council, tentatively called Japan Internet Domain Name Council, where multi-stakeholder approach with consumer groups, Internet industry and the Government will work together. izumi

1 0

Next APRALO Call / Wednesday 24 June at 07:00 UTC
by At-Large Staff 23 Jun '09

23 Jun '09

Dear All, This is to remind you that the next APRALO teleconference is scheduled for Wednesday 24 June 2009 at 07:00 UTC (17:00 Sydney time). The draft agenda and meeting details can be found at: https://st.icann.org/asiapac/index.cgi?24_june_2009 If you require dial-outs, please let us know at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. Thank you Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 3

Meeting on Wednesday
by Pavan Budhrani 22 Jun '09

22 Jun '09

Hey all, Those of you in Sydney, we will be meeting at the same room where we had all ALAC meetings at 5pm local time, for those dialing in, please do so using same methods as before, those who need dial out, please let staff now soon. Thanks and looking forward to a good and concrete meeting. Pavan Budhrani Communications Manager, DotAsia Organisation

1 0

[FW: ISOC launches IGF 2009 Ambassador Program]
by Rajnesh D. Singh 04 Jun '09

04 Jun '09

FYI. Applications close June 29th. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear all, Following the successful ISOC Ambassador program to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2005, to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio in 2007 and in Hyderabad in 2008, we are pleased to announce a call for expressions of interest to participate in the ISOC Ambassador program to the Internet Governance Forum meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, in November 2009. As part of the ISOC Internet Leaders program, the Ambassador program is designed to involve members in ISOC's global engagement activities while providing valuable expertise and know-how to the IGF meeting in Sharm El Sheikh. This year, ISOC is supporting not only the participation of *first time Ambassadors*, but also of *returning Ambassadors* to the Internet Governance Forum. The IGF 2009 meeting will take place Sunday 15 through Wednesday 18 November 2009. Interested individuals should be available to arrive no later than Saturday 14 November. Further details on ISOC's IGF 2009 Ambassador program can be found here: http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/igfambassadors/ Read also about: ISOC Internet Leaders program: http://www.isoc.org/leaders/ Internet Governance Forum: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ Best regards, Constance Bommelaer Senior Manager Strategic Global Engagement Internet Society (ISOC) +41 22 807 14 48 +33 6 62 17 31 86 http://www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/>

1 0