[Chapter-delegates] New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009

Thu Jul 16 10:04:11 PDT 2009

Hello Oliver,

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>wrote:

>  New gTLD programme outreach events
> London meeting / 15 July 2009
>
> Panel:
> Fabricio Vayra - Counsel, Intellectual Property - Time Warner
> Stacey King - Intellectual Property Lawyer - Richemont International
> David Taylor - Partner - Lovells
> Ellen B. Shankman - Attorney at Law, Ellen B. Shankman & Associates
> Jonathan Cohen - Senior Partner - Shapiro Cohen
> Jeff Neuman - Vice President - Law & Policy, NeuStar
> Eun-Joo Min - Head of Legal Development Section - WIPO Arbitration &
> Mediation Center
> Richard Tindall - Senior VP or Registry - Demand Media
>
> I had breakfast with Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Lecturer in IT & Commercial
> law at Univ of Strathclyde, who led the charge on behalf of NCUC in London,
> as well as with Richard Tindall (see above). We discussed the points of the
> IRT report, point by point. Richard is, among the panel, the only person who
> does not agree with all recommendations of the IRT, although he believes we
> should not completely reject all points.
>

If Richard is the only one who differs, it is not surprising. It is a panel
of Intellectual Property lawyers. Wittingly of unwittingly this Road Show is
akin to a Corporate presentation that precedes a product launch which is
decided.

>
> Starting at 9:00am, the morning was spent listening to presentations from
> ICANN (Introduction to New gTLD Program) and trademark protection
> presentations. Presentations are available elsewhere - just the standard
> blurb which we have seen many times already. Since those ran longer than
> expected, questions were only taken from the floor at 12:10. Only 2 people
> managed to speak
>

There were comments about Public participation in ICANN meetings, repeated
over and over again, that adequate time is not allowed for public
participation. The comments haven't been applied in designing the IRT road
shows?

> - 2 usual suspects which we all know. Whilst logged in online in the adobe
> connect room, I asked Peter (Dengate Thrush - who was not present
> physically) to ask his staff to be more stringent on mic time. This was done
> in the afternoon.
>
> Much discussion was undertaken over lunch, with the general mood of the
> participants whom I spoke to being the the GPML would not pass, the IP
> Clearinghouse would be in doubt, the URS would need changes if it were to
> pass, and unknown interest for the rest of the recommendations.
> That said, Konstantinos told me he spoke with other people who favoured the
> GPML, the IP Clearinghouse etc.
>

Oliver, for the benefit of ordinary mortals like me, please use
abbreviations sparingly.

>
> Every participant was given a set of sheets, one of each colour, asking a
> specific questions of the type:
> IP ClearingHouse proposal:
> - I broadly support this proposal
> - I broadly do not support this proposal
> Comment:
>
> Forms could be given in anonymously, so I suspect we'll only know the
> reality once these are processed by ICANN staff. As in any such discussions,
> I suspect some participants say something in public and vite differently
> anonymously.
>
> The afternoon started with more comment period, and thankfully there was a
> lot of time allocated to comments.
> Konstantinos Komaitis wanted to read a statement from NCUC but was rudely
> cut short by Jeff Neuman since, according to him, it was just the same thing
> was what had been said in New York. Konstantinos replied that he was
> repeating it for the sake of the audience in London to hear it, and Jeff
> asked him to speed this up. On the whole, and although my judgement might be
> biased in a way, I think that this did not reflect well on Jeff Neuman's
> standing.
> Werner Staub from CORE asked for proceedings in getting the gTLD process to
> be speeded up. It appears that they just see the IRT as another stumbling
> block and are ready to say "yes yes yes" as long as they can go ahead with
> creating new gTLDs. Several other participants defended their small piece of
> pie, not really caring about the general user / registrant.
> Thankfully, we had the presence of John Levine among us, who took the mic
> to very eloquently tell the panel what he did not agree with.
> (I had been told privately before the meeting that it was not quantity but
> quality of response/respondent that mattered - so John's presence was a real
> boost - thanks John! )
>
> Speaking to some ICANN staff & other particpants afterwards, I believe that
> the user's point of view is well understood. It was also mentioned publicly
> that sadly not enough users were represented there, and I pointed out to
> Fabricio Vayra (with whom I spoke to along with Konstantinos Komaitis) that
> the IRT team would have avoided embarrassment had it included
> representatives from At-Large & NCUC. He still believes hard as steel that
> the recommendations presented by the IRT team are benefitting the users as
> much as brand owners. He also agrees with the representative from WIPO
> (Eun-Joo Min) that costs for the trademark-related proposals (IP
> clearinghouse, GPML etc.) should be borne not only by trademark owners but
> also by everyone else. We made him understand that we should agree to
> disagree on this.
>
> Personal notes
>
> Ultimately, all points of view are known by everyone now. It is clear that
> the IRT team will stick to its guns and we'll stick to ours. It is obvious
> that we live in parrallel worlds. Furthermore, whilst the panellists were
> introduced as acting independently of their job assignments, speaking to
> each panellists in private, it is plain obvious that their professional
> function put them in a position where their employer/clients put pressure on
> them. I understand that they did a lot of work but this work was not
> independent.
>

Understandably Yes.

>
> That's it for the time being. I hope it gives a fair idea of what went on.
> No doubt others will also write a little review of the day as well. If I
> receive more info, I'll forward/cross-post it to the relevant lists.
>
> Any questions: don't hesitate to ask!
>

Is there any possibility of asking ICANN to make the remaining Road Shows
more balanced?

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

>
> Warm regards,
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20090716/1745f9a1/attachment.htm>