Re: [At-Large] New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009
One more point, which I wanted to write separately: I've heard a lot of people say that Intellectual Property & the work of the IRT fell outside ICANN's scope. Someone asked this specific question & Jonathan Cohen, Senior Partner at Shapiro Cohen replied that this was false: according to him, the ICANN bylaws & principles mention protection of Intellectual Property & Marks, and that therefore, the IRT's proposals fall completely *in line* with ICANN's *core mission*. I'd be interested if this was confirmed/denied. O.
On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Jonathan Cohen, Senior Partner at Shapiro Cohen replied that this was false
Jonathan has been promulgating that myth since 2000 when he sat on the board. Then he stated "Protecting intellectual property rights is written into the bylaws, deal with it" (paraphrasing, I can't readily find the exact quote from the transcripts...) "Intellectual Property" is only mentioned in the bylaws in the context of the constituency structures and processes. No where in the bylaws does it state that the protection of IP and marks is in scope for the organization. As far as his mention of ICANN's "principles" go, I'd need a citation. I don't believe that there is a document that could be called "ICANN's Principles" and even if it does it exist, it would likely be non-binding. The only documents that matter in this regard are the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws and consensus policy, none of which could be construed as determining whether the IRT is in- scope or not. /r
I hate to say it, but trademark/IP issues were written into the initial MoU, which became current JPA, item V.C.9.d quoted below. http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm 9. Collaborate on the design, development and testing of a plan for creating a process that will consider the possible expansion of the number of gTLDs. The designed process should consider and take into account the following: a. The potential impact of new gTLDs on the Internet root server system and Internet stability. b. The creation and implementation of minimum criteria for new and existing gTLD registries. c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive environment for gTLD registries. d. Recommendations regarding trademark/domain name policies set forth in the Statement of Policy; recommendations made by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) concerning: (i) the development of a uniform approach to resolving trademark/domain name disputes involving cyberpiracy; (ii) a process for protecting famous trademarks in the generic top level domains; (iii) the effects of adding new gTLDs and related dispute resolution procedures on trademark and intellectual property holders; and recommendations made by other independent organizations concerning trademark/domain name issues. Elisabeth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Rader" <ross@tucows.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London15 July 2009
On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Jonathan Cohen, Senior Partner at Shapiro Cohen replied that this was false
Jonathan has been promulgating that myth since 2000 when he sat on the board. Then he stated "Protecting intellectual property rights is written into the bylaws, deal with it" (paraphrasing, I can't readily find the exact quote from the transcripts...)
"Intellectual Property" is only mentioned in the bylaws in the context of the constituency structures and processes. No where in the bylaws does it state that the protection of IP and marks is in scope for the organization. As far as his mention of ICANN's "principles" go, I'd need a citation. I don't believe that there is a document that could be called "ICANN's Principles" and even if it does it exist, it would likely be non-binding. The only documents that matter in this regard are the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws and consensus policy, none of which could be construed as determining whether the IRT is in- scope or not.
/r
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
9. Collaborate on the design, development and testing of a plan for creating a process that will consider the possible expansion of the number of gTLDs.
"Collaborate on the design, development and testing" != implement. My .02
I hate to say it, but trademark/IP issues were written into the initial MoU, which became current JPA, item V.C.9.d quoted below. http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm
Section V.C. has been replaced in its entirety several times. The most recent September 2006 modifications to the JPA replaced it with much simpler language nothing about IP. Dealing with IP may have been ICANN's job ten years ago when he was on the board, but it isn't now and hasn't been at least since 2006. See http://www.icann.org/en/general/agreements.htm
On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Jonathan Cohen, Senior Partner at Shapiro Cohen replied that this was false
Jonathan has been promulgating that myth since 2000 when he sat on the board. Then he stated "Protecting intellectual property rights is written into the bylaws, deal with it" (paraphrasing, I can't readily find the exact quote from the transcripts...)
R's, John
Section V.C. has been replaced in its entirety several times. The most recent September 2006 modifications to the JPA replaced it with much simpler language nothing about IP. Dealing with IP may have been ICANN's job ten years ago when he was on the board, but it isn't now and hasn't been at least since 2006.
It has never been ICANN's job, but as a coordinating body is not out of the scope for ICANN to, in a collaborative fashion gather recommendations and participate in the development of a plan and processes that consider property rights in the potential introduction of new gTLDs. IMHO, and grabbing a concept from new ICANN's CEO's book "The Starfish and The Spider", as soon as you embed property rights into ICANN's role, that will be the demise of the organization. My .02 Jorge
On 07/16/2009 09:41 AM, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
I hate to say it, but trademark/IP issues were written into the initial MoU, which became current JPA, item V.C.9.d quoted below. http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm
d. Recommendations regarding trademark/domain name policies set forth in the Statement of Policy; recommendations made by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) concerning:
Two points. First is that NTIA has no legal authority to do that kind of thing itself and thus has no power to require it of others or to delegate it to to others. The US Congress' arm called the "GAO" twice looked for NTIA's authority in these matters and twice came up with the answer "we can't find any". The list of authorities cited in the MOU is of ones so distant from what ICANN does as to be essentially irrelevant. Second is that the quote you cite mentions merely says that ICANN ought to "consider and take into account" certain then existing recommendations from WIPO. That quote does not, at least not to my mind, suggest participation by anything or anyone other than WIPO. Moreover, the item you cite is one of 10 items. But let's look at that item more closely:
9. Collaborate on the design, development and testing of a plan for creating a process that will consider the possible expansion of the number of gTLDs. The designed process should consider and take into account the following:
We see from that that the MOU was merely contemplating the creation of a plan and testing of that plan. It does not call for full implementation of that plan or deployment of things like the UDRP for any purpose other than "testing". By-the-way, during the discussions of this MOU ICANN made promises that the majority of its board seats would be chosen by the public. (I remember that phone call, it was the first time I used VoIP.) Too bad that we did not have the leverage to get NTIA to write that down into the MoU. Sigh. --karl--
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<ocl@gih.com> wrote:
One more point, which I wanted to write separately:
I've heard a lot of people say that Intellectual Property & the work of the IRT fell outside ICANN's scope.
Someone asked this specific question & Jonathan Cohen, Senior Partner at Shapiro Cohen replied that this was false: according to him, the ICANN bylaws & principles mention protection of Intellectual Property & Marks, and that therefore, the IRT's proposals fall completely *in line* with ICANN's *core mission*.
I'd be interested if this was confirmed/denied.
He is absolutely wrong, as expressed in the original White Paper, MoU and subsequent amendments, from what is referred as the JPA, and from ICANN's bylaws, it is totally out of the mandate and role of ICANN to become a global clearinghouse for IP, superseding international and national laws. But nothing constrains ICANN to study the subject and ask for expert advice about how to handle the issue. IMHO, some of the issues are: - the IRT WG constituency - the lack of public participation in the process - the conclusions and proposed implementation ICANN's core mission is to: - Coordinate the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet - Coordinate the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system - Coordinate policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions Also some folks are stretching beyond its original intent ICANN's role "to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems", arguing that under the umbrella of "security" ICANN plays sort of a "regulator" role, which is also wrong since ICANN was created as a technical coordination body and not as any type of regulatory agency. My .02 Jorge
On 07/16/2009 05:11 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Someone asked this specific question& Jonathan Cohen, Senior Partner at Shapiro Cohen replied that this was false: according to him, the ICANN bylaws& principles mention protection of Intellectual Property& Marks, and that therefore, the IRT's proposals fall completely *in line* with ICANN's *core mission*.
Jonathan was on ICANN's board of directors when I was. Jonathan, who can be very friendly and congenial on many things, is solidly behind ICANN as an intellectual property protection cop. But does that assertion make it so? ICANN can put anything it wants into its mission statement. (Have you seen the ICANN mission statement generator: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/mission-generator.html ) It is revealing to look at what ICANN says, particularly to governments, in more private places. In ICANN's United States tax filings ICANN says nothing about trademarks and tracks it statement of purpose very close to the mantra of technical coordination for the purpose of maintaining technical stability. It is also useful to look at ICANN's statements to courts in which ICANN argues that it is merely a vehicle of technical coordination. There is nothing "technical coordination" about protecting trademarks from people who use words to communicate with one another. ICANN is viewed by the intellectual property protection industry (an industry not to be confused with the intellectual property *creation* industry) as a pliant tool to obtain trademark protective rules without the cost and effort, not to mention the delay, of trying to get national legislatures to enact laws of that nature. And ICANN provides a way to throw trademark-vs-domain name disputes into a high-speed forum, one that arguably lacks due process for the accused domain name holder. (This latter aspect I've seen myself. I am a member of the California Bar and part of its Intellectual Property section. I have been to meetings in which various attorneys suggested ways to bluff an accused domain name holder out of his/her name by throwing the issue into the ICANN UDRP meat grinder.) In addition, one must ask, from whence comes this authority to be the internet's trademark cop? There is no delegation of such authority from any government, most notably not from the US Dept of Commerce's NTIA agency, which, by the way, has no statutory power to endow that kind of trademark cop powers onto ICANN. So we see that ICANN's trademark policeman's badge has no more meaning than a plastic badge found in a child's breakfast cereal box. --karl--
In addition, one must ask, from whence comes this authority to be the internet's trademark cop? There is no delegation of such authority from any government, most notably not from the US Dept of Commerce's NTIA agency, which, by the way, has no statutory power to endow that kind of trademark cop powers onto ICANN.
From nowhere and nobody. ICANN only reason for its existence is that we require a set of unique identifiers to keep Internet working as a collaborative conglomeration of autonomous and heterogeneous networks.
ICANN original intent was to provide a more formal and institutional framework for the work Jon Postel and IANA have been doing for many years, and to facilitate creating a more open process about how this work is done, nothing less, nothing more. The rest is an awful amount of yada-yada that has been artificially embedded into ICANN by a flock of crows which their only interest is to keep profiting from the money printing machine that ICANN became collecting fees. BTW, being a charitable organization, how much money did ICANN contribute on behalf of the Internet Community to charitable causes ? Double sigh.
Olivier thank you *so much* for this excellent report, I was only able to join via the Adobe Connect room for a short while between other teleconferences but I was there during the time when the particular question you outline below came to the mike... Considering the amount of discussion this issue has generated I would like to ask you Olivier, and the List Members a couple of things... Firstly to Olivier may we (ALAC) 'copy' your report(s) from this list into a text section in the IRT WG Wiki space https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?at_large_irt_process_working_gro... (and indeed I would also welcome any other reports from people who may also have attended the London "show" or the earlier New York one as well as the next two planned for Hong Kong & Abu-Dhabi) And secondly questions to the At-Large List; 1. should we also record/ engage in further discussion/ debate on this specific topic of ICANN's scope (as it relates to the IRT report and new gTLD's in that wiki as well ? 2. Do you wish us to set up a 'Commons' associated with that Wiki Workspace to encourage and capture more discussion and debate from us all? I will raise this topic at the ALAC meeting on July 28th if you wish and propose that we ask for "feedback" from the Board on this matter, so *if* you do capture your thought points, of view and debate on this topic in such a Commons or Workspace, then we can use the that as a resource to direct their attention to... Just a thought let me know how you want us to proceed... CLO Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
One more point, which I wanted to write separately:
I've heard a lot of people say that Intellectual Property & the work of the IRT fell outside ICANN's scope.
Someone asked this specific question & Jonathan Cohen, Senior Partner at Shapiro Cohen replied that this was false: according to him, the ICANN bylaws & principles mention protection of Intellectual Property & Marks, and that therefore, the IRT's proposals fall completely *in line* with ICANN's *core mission*.
I'd be interested if this was confirmed/denied.
O. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
And secondly questions to the At-Large List; 1. should we also record/ engage in further discussion/ debate on this specific topic of ICANN's scope (as it relates to the IRT report and new gTLD's in that wiki as well ? 2. Do you wish us to set up a 'Commons' associated with that Wiki Workspace to encourage and capture more discussion and debate from us all?
In the early days of ICANN (2000-2002), there were a bundle of discussions on the danger of mission creep. It was pointed out, "what is truly dangerous about ICANN is that it might use its power over the DNS chokepoint to enforce global policy on the use of anonymous remailers, on trademark law, on the exchange of pornographic information or copyrighted music files, or the rest of the policy issues that it has the power (if not, currently, the inclination) to address." http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/28/064529 Prevention of mission creep was confirmation by the PSC report. "Furthermore, while ICANN’s mission is narrow, it is fundamental and critical to the secure and stable operation of the Internet. The PSC believes that ICANN has a responsibility to be a discussion leader and raise awareness of issues linked to stability and security of the Internet. Broader interest and concern about security and stability issues is, in the view of the PSC, an important support to the core mission, but should not result in “mission creep." http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/improving-confidence.htm I do support Cheryl's suggestion on discussion of "commons". If ICANN cannot observe its narrow mission, it may be necessary to set up certain principles to preserve "commons" in this "global policy setting". With respect to IRT specifically, I assume we don't have to look at the ICANN bylaws or "principles" (if any). It has been very clearly stated by Avri, the Chair of GNSO, that it is beyond of the GNSO PDP and oringial gTLD implementation proposals submitted to the Board. No stakeholder should be allowed to subvert the PDP. If the ICANN governance is not satisfied with the outcome of PDP, it could send it back to GNSO for redrafting but could not insert something new on the top of it. Hong
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
One more point, which I wanted to write separately:
I've heard a lot of people say that Intellectual Property & the work of the IRT fell outside ICANN's scope.
Someone asked this specific question & Jonathan Cohen, Senior Partner at Shapiro Cohen replied that this was false: according to him, the ICANN bylaws & principles mention protection of Intellectual Property & Marks, and that therefore, the IRT's proposals fall completely *in line* with ICANN's *core mission*.
I'd be interested if this was confirmed/denied.
O. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Hong Xue, Ph.D. Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law Beijing Normal University 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
Firstly to Olivier may we (ALAC) 'copy' your report(s) from this list into a text section in the IRT WG Wiki space https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?at_large_irt_process_working_gro... (and indeed I would also welcome any other reports from people who may also have attended the London "show" or the earlier New York one as well as the next two planned for Hong Kong & Abu-Dhabi)
Of course Cheryl, that's fine by me. I'm happy it is deemed interesting enough to include. On the second part of your note I'm afraid that there seems to be a misunderstanding. Quoting on the page: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm Which includes agendas for each of the meetings: "During the upcoming consultation sessions in New York (13 July) and London (15 July), attendees will have the chance to hear from ICANN staff and others who have contributed to the ongoing process, including members of the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) that submitted their report to the ICANN Board on measures to protect intellectual property. The proposed events in Hong Kong (24 July) and Abu-Dhabi (4 August) will mainly focus on the New gTLDs and Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) programs details." This means that the NYC & London meetings both center on the IRT, but the Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi events focus on IDNs. Does this mean that ICANN is intentionally restricting the IRT roadshow to NYC & London - (anglo-saxon) locations which might be more likely to "accept" the IRT's recommendations? I am sorry to bring this up, but IMHO, the IRT's report will affect those other parts of the world as much as the "western" world. It is precisely something which the IRT Team has failed to understand. Kindest regards, Olivier
Hello On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
The proposed events in Hong Kong (24 July) and Abu-Dhabi (4 August) will mainly focus on the New gTLDs and Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) programs details."
Is at-Large and other relevant constituencies doing work on IDN TLDs formally informed and invited to these regional consultations? Thank you. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Olivier Reading this now I get surprised. At Hong Kong will be not the same road show to debate IRT? Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:22 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009
Firstly to Olivier may we (ALAC) 'copy' your report(s) from this list into a text section in the IRT WG Wiki space
https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?at_large_irt_process_working_gro up
(and indeed I would also welcome any other reports from people who may also have attended the London "show" or the earlier New York one as well as the next two planned for Hong Kong & Abu-Dhabi)
Of course Cheryl, that's fine by me. I'm happy it is deemed interesting enough to include. On the second part of your note I'm afraid that there seems to be a misunderstanding. Quoting on the page: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm Which includes agendas for each of the meetings: "During the upcoming consultation sessions in New York (13 July) and London (15 July), attendees will have the chance to hear from ICANN staff and others who have contributed to the ongoing process, including members of the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) that submitted their report to the ICANN Board on measures to protect intellectual property. The proposed events in Hong Kong (24 July) and Abu-Dhabi (4 August) will mainly focus on the New gTLDs and Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) programs details." This means that the NYC & London meetings both center on the IRT, but the Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi events focus on IDNs. Does this mean that ICANN is intentionally restricting the IRT roadshow to NYC & London - (anglo-saxon) locations which might be more likely to "accept" the IRT's recommendations? I am sorry to bring this up, but IMHO, the IRT's report will affect those other parts of the world as much as the "western" world. It is precisely something which the IRT Team has failed to understand. Kindest regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear all: a Question: I can see Consultation sessions in NY, in London, in HK.......but not in any place into LAC region. Are we into the ICANN world? much more attention give to me, the fact: Latin America and Caribbean is one of the largest growth is expected in the next 5 years. Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org
From: vanda@uol.com.br To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:14:36 -0300 Subject: Re: [At-Large] New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009
Olivier Reading this now I get surprised. At Hong Kong will be not the same road show to debate IRT?
Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:22 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009
Firstly to Olivier may we (ALAC) 'copy' your report(s) from this list into a text section in the IRT WG Wiki space
https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?at_large_irt_process_working_gro up
(and indeed I would also welcome any other reports from people who may also have attended the London "show" or the earlier New York one as well as the next two planned for Hong Kong & Abu-Dhabi)
Of course Cheryl, that's fine by me. I'm happy it is deemed interesting enough to include.
On the second part of your note I'm afraid that there seems to be a misunderstanding. Quoting on the page: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm Which includes agendas for each of the meetings:
"During the upcoming consultation sessions in New York (13 July) and London (15 July), attendees will have the chance to hear from ICANN staff and others who have contributed to the ongoing process, including members of the
Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) that submitted their report to the ICANN Board on measures to protect intellectual property. The proposed events in Hong Kong (24 July) and Abu-Dhabi (4 August) will mainly focus on the New gTLDs and Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) programs details."
This means that the NYC & London meetings both center on the IRT, but the Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi events focus on IDNs. Does this mean that ICANN is intentionally restricting the IRT roadshow to NYC & London - (anglo-saxon) locations which might be more likely to "accept" the IRT's recommendations?
I am sorry to bring this up, but IMHO, the IRT's report will affect those other parts of the world as much as the "western" world. It is precisely something which the IRT Team has failed to understand.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_________________________________________________________________ Gratis Internet Explorer 8 optimizado para MSN http://www.ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/es-ar/ie8.aspx
Dear Carlos I believe that there is a Latin American new gTLD meeting tour starting in September. Desiree -- On 20 Jul 2009, at 13:49, carlos aguirre wrote:
Dear all: a Question:
I can see Consultation sessions in NY, in London, in HK.......but not in any place into LAC region. Are we into the ICANN world?
much more attention give to me, the fact: Latin America and Caribbean is one of the largest growth is expected in the next 5 years.
Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org
From: vanda@uol.com.br To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:14:36 -0300 Subject: Re: [At-Large] New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009
Olivier Reading this now I get surprised. At Hong Kong will be not the same road show to debate IRT?
Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:22 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009
Firstly to Olivier may we (ALAC) 'copy' your report(s) from this list into a text section in the IRT WG Wiki space
https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?at_large_irt_process_working_gro up
(and indeed I would also welcome any other reports from people who may also have attended the London "show" or the earlier New York one as well as the next two planned for Hong Kong & Abu-Dhabi)
Of course Cheryl, that's fine by me. I'm happy it is deemed interesting enough to include.
On the second part of your note I'm afraid that there seems to be a misunderstanding. Quoting on the page: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm Which includes agendas for each of the meetings:
"During the upcoming consultation sessions in New York (13 July) and London (15 July), attendees will have the chance to hear from ICANN staff and others who have contributed to the ongoing process, including members of the
Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) that submitted their report to the ICANN Board on measures to protect intellectual property. The proposed events in Hong Kong (24 July) and Abu-Dhabi (4 August) will mainly focus on the New gTLDs and Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) programs details."
This means that the NYC & London meetings both center on the IRT, but the Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi events focus on IDNs. Does this mean that ICANN is intentionally restricting the IRT roadshow to NYC & London - (anglo- saxon) locations which might be more likely to "accept" the IRT's recommendations?
I am sorry to bring this up, but IMHO, the IRT's report will affect those other parts of the world as much as the "western" world. It is precisely something which the IRT Team has failed to understand.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_________________________________________________________________ Gratis Internet Explorer 8 optimizado para MSN http://www.ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/es-ar/ie8.aspx _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
There is not a single event in LA&C listed in the calandar & related to this subject. http://www.icann.org/en/general/calendar/ Jorge On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Desiree Miloshevic<dmiloshevic@afilias.info> wrote:
Dear Carlos
I believe that there is a Latin American new gTLD meeting tour starting in September.
Desiree
As I understand it, particularly from Richard Tindal's remarks at the London session, Version 3 of the Draft Applicant Handbook (due Q3 2009)* is intended to be the final one - so September might be a bit late? Could it be that ICANN considers Mexico gave the Latins their chance for input? While the comment period on the IRT report ended on July 6 - ICANN does state that " The IRT is not the only source of input ICANN will be considering." ** One wonders what the others are? * http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-e-en.htm ** http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@gmail.com> wrote:
There is not a single event in LA&C listed in the calandar & related to this subject.
http://www.icann.org/en/general/calendar/
Jorge
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Desiree Miloshevic<dmiloshevic@afilias.info> wrote:
Dear Carlos
I believe that there is a Latin American new gTLD meeting tour starting in September.
Desiree
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast ISOC-NY http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------
participants (13)
-
carlos aguirre -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Desiree Miloshevic -
Elisabeth Porteneuve -
Hong Xue -
John R. Levine -
Joly MacFie -
Jorge Amodio -
Karl Auerbach -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Ross Rader -
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -
Vanda Scartezini