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@vande-walle.eu> Reply-To: ALAC Internal List <alac-internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Organization: My very own private disorganization To: ALAC Internal List <alac-internal@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@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@atlarge.icann.org