[At-Large] Fwd: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICA challenge to IRT

[Adam Peake]

From the NCUC list (public).

Background to the note below is a CricleID 
article "ICA to ICANN: The IRT Must Open Up Or Be 
Stripped of Official Status and Support" 
<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090422_ica_icann_implementation_recommendation_team/>

Adam


>
>Date:         Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:16:37 -0400
>Reply-To:     Mary Wong <MWong at PIERCELAW.EDU>
>Sender:       Non-Commercial User Constituency <NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>From:         Mary Wong <MWong at PIERCELAW.EDU>
>Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICA challenge to IRT
>To:           NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Description: HTML
>
>Thanks, Bill - I'd just seen that article too.
>
>Everyone, as I was asked by the IPC to be on the 
>IRT, and as I wasn't able during the last NCUC 
>call to elaborate on what's being done, here's a 
>quick summary:
>
>- The Implementation Recommendation Team's (IRT) 
>initial draft proposals will be released 
>tomorrow for public comment. I'd encourage 
>everyone to review the proposals and submit 
>feedback, as the IRT is due to make its final 
>recommendations to the Board in late May.
>
>- the IRT meets weekly via teleconference, and 
>in two in-person meetings (one in April, one in 
>May); in between, various work teams that were 
>formed within the IRT also meet via 
>teleconference and work on draft proposals for 
>circulation and comment by other IRT members.
>
>- the discussions to date include proposals 
>dealing with both top and second level domains 
>and regarding both pre-launch and 
>post-delegation issues. The primary suggestion 
>is to use an IP Clearinghouse with tiered rights 
>protection mechanisms (instead of a single 
>Reserved Names List - this was a non-starter 
>given the flak the GAC and the Geographic Names 
>List has been getting); and there may also be a 
>rapid suspension system for abusive 
>registrations.
>
>- contrary to some expectations, the process so 
>far has not been a whitewash in favor of big 
>brand owners. There have been compromises, 
>disagreements and quite a bit of debate over 
>controversial issues. While the draft report is 
>unlikely to please everybody, I think it is more 
>balanced than some had feared and is not, for 
>example, a back door route to expand the UDRP 
>(as Phil Corwin alleges in the article).
>
>- Minutes of previous IRT meetings are available 
>online at 
><https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?trademark_protection>https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?trademark_protection (if 
>you have limited time, the more informative 
>minutes are probably those from April 2 and 
>April 17).
>
>So please review the draft proposals when they 
>are released late tomorrow, and please do make 
>public comments - and also start a discussion on 
>this listserv - if you see anything that you 
>think may impact on non-commercial users and 
>consumers.
>
>Thanks,
>Mar
>
>Mary W S Wong
>Professor of Law
>Franklin Pierce Law Center
>Two White Street
>Concord, NH 03301
>USA
>Email: <mailto:mwong at piercelaw.edu>mwong at piercelaw.edu
>Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>Webpage: 
><http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php>http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
>Selected writings available on the Social 
>Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
><http://ssrn.com/author=437584>http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>y
>  >>> William Drake <william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH> 4/23/2009 4:50 PM >>>
>If you've not seen 
>it...http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090422_ica_icann_implementation_recommendation_team/