[At-Large] [GTLD-WG] IRT working group report

[Elisabeth Porteneuve]

Hello,

Re: NYTimes Saul Hansell articlle, and its reference to the Treaty of
Versailles.

Why IPR regarding domain names should be *forever*, unlimited? The situation
at pharmaceutical industry is much more sane, when patents expire after 20
years or so. The Treaty of Versailles rule regarding aspirin and other
medecine trade mark should apply today to absolutely every other mark -
after 20 years or so, in line with patent protection, the trademark word
shall became for everyone usage. I may understand that company name shall be
protected as long as company is running, but not products, not words we use
everyday.



I think also that all IPR system related to films or music must be
revisited - today the rights are practically unlimited in time, nobody ever
seen anything going back to public commons after 70 or 95 years. The
Internet is being used by labels to reinforce their positions. The label
revenues are revenues of IP lawyers.

"The Internet is for everyone", remember? "Don't screw up our Internet" (the
message from children to Vint Cerf), remember?

Elisabeth Porteneuve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com>
To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] IRT working group report


> Thank you, Joly!
>
> Hello from the floor here at RIBA. They've implemented a WIFI network, and 
> I can receive questions/comments (if you have any) and relay them to the 
> panel.
>
> I'm sitting by John Levine (writer of "Internet for Dummies") & behind 
> Konstantinos Komaitis (NCUC's representative here). I had breakfast with 
> Dr. Komaitis & Richard Tindall (DemandMedia) earlier on, to look for 
> satisfying solutions for everyone.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> O.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "WWWhatsup" <joly at punkcast.com>
> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] IRT working group report
>
>
>> At 05:06 AM 7/3/2009, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>>>I've registered for the London event to take place on 15th July ( 
>>>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12jun09-en.htm )
>>>and will essentially be defending this line: it is outside ICANN's 
>>>mandate.
>>>Anyone else planning to be in London?
>>>
>>>Olivier
>>
>>
>> Good luck Olivier!
>>
>>
>> I note that 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ===
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at 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