Dear ISPCP Constituency members Please see the note received from Steve Metalitz below and the invitation to provide input to the IRT, either as a Constituency or individually. In view of the very short timescale I'd like to propose that members of the ISPCP submit individual responses but copy them to the ISPCP mailing list. Regards Tony _____ From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: 12 March 2009 14:59 To: tonyarholmes@btinternet.com Subject: ISPC input to IRT on trademark issues in new gTLDs Dear Tony: During its March 6 meeting in Mexico City, the ICANN Board of Directors passed a resolution calling for the creation of an implementation recommendation team to "develop and propose solutions to the overarching issues of trademark protection in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs." That resolution directs the implementation recommendation team to "solicit input from the interested constituencies." (The full text of the resolution is accessible at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm.) The Board requested the GNSO's Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) to convene an implementation recommendation team (IRT). Although the IPC is still developing the time line for the IRT's work and the criteria for membership on the IRT, the IPC wishes to begin soliciting input from the constituencies. Accordingly, we write to request that input from the ISP Constituency. In particular, we seek the ISP Constituency's proposals for solutions (new or existing) to trademark protection issues that have been identified in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs, concerns about such solutions, and any other pertinent information your ISP Constituency believes the IRT should have as it begins its work. We encourage you to be as specific as possible. With regard to solutions, it is particularly important that solutions be scalable and fair. Finally, with the exception of identifying support for and/or identifying concerns with specific measures, it is not necessary to submit proposals about solutions that were set forth in public comments on the first draft of the Draft Applicant Guidebook; an IPC team is already hard at work identifying them. Those proposals can be seen by reviewing the public comments sections at <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-en.htm#resources>, and many of them are in short form in section IX of the comment analysis at <http://icann.x.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agv1-analysis-public-comments- 18feb09-en.pdf>. Given the timetable set forth in the Board's resolution, we request your input not later than March 25, 2009. If it is not possible under the internal processes of the ISP Constituency to develop and approve any formal submission in the requested time frame, individual submissions from ISP Constituency members are permitted. Your ISP Constituency comments will have significant impact on the quality of the proposal and the speed that it will adopted, so please carefully consider your input, make it as complete as possible and try to respect the objectives of trying to protect consumers from harm while creating a fair and scalable solution. Please direct all submissions to ip-issues@icann.org. Also feel free to forward this request if you are not the right person to deal with it on behalf of your constituency. Thanks! Steve Metalitz, IPC president