[Chapter-delegates] ICANN's gTLD Implementation Consultation

[WWWhatsup]

Please note that  ICANN's gTLD Implementation Consultation London session 
will begin in a few hours in London (15 July) and remote participation
is available via https://admin.na3.acrobat.com/_a819976787/outreach

Agenda: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/london-agenda-speakers-15jul09-en.pdf

Further sessions are to be Hong Kong (24 July) and Abu-Dhabi (4 August). These will
have a heavier emphasis in IDN's 

More info: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm


==NYC session==

Members of ISOC-NY attended the session at the Millennium Hotel in NYC last Monday July 13. 

ICANN's Implementation Recommendation Team presented their report on how disputes over 
trademarks in the new domains be handled. There were also presentations on new developments in DNS security, 
and scaling the root server system. Attendee's comments and questions, both oral and written, were solicited. 


It was our sense, particularly on the IRT's trademark recommendations
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/presentation-irt-13jul09-en.pdf
that the voice of regular internet users / site registrants, was somewhat under-represented
compared to that of corporate interests.

Video will be forthcoming on the ISOC-NY website http://isoc-ny.org 


==More info==

The ALAC / NCUC Joint Statement on the IRT Report
https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?joint_statement_on_the_irt_report_from_alac_and_ncuc


A bit of reaction from the NYC session:

NY Times articles:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/the-best-internet-addresses-will-cost-a-cool-million/

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/brokering-peace-between-brand-owners-and-domainers/

A long think piece from Rebecca Mckinnon supporting NCUC positions
http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/icann-and-free-speech.html

An essay, quoted in the above, that suggests the Global Protected Marks List involves prior restraint of free speech
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090621_mahmoud_ahmadinejad_globally_protected_marks_list_gpml/

and finally, ISOC's own Public Interest Registry's comments
http://www.circleid.com/posts/comments_on_icanns_irt_final_report/

I quote from the latter:



>We believe the Final Report puts too much emphasis on obliging
>registries to enforce trademark rights, in place of requiring ICANN
>to devote more resources to enforcing its contracts with registrars.
>We also believe that ICANN already has the legal tools to deal with
>the admittedly rare instances where a registry is in business to
>profit from trademark infringement. Adding a new legal process and
>giving rights to outsiders who are not parties to the ICANN-registry
>agreements is likely to increase litigation and its expense for all
>concerned. It is not likely to deal effectively with the real
>problems of cybersquatting.




Joly MacFie 
212 608 1334
http://wwwhatsup.com
http://punkcast.com  
http://pinstand.com