[At-Large] New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009

Sun Jul 19 18:12:31 CDT 2009

Dear Olivier
 Thanks for this clear report. I do agree the writers of IRT are bond with
the IP environment and will not step down from that position as should us
not either. Let's see Hong Kong what we get.
Related to ICANN X IP I believe the issue is more related to the kind of
business we deal with, than formal commitment from ICANN. There is no
reference in our bylaws, but there is a constituency in our structure which
brings the issue to over the table. 
I do believe the best ICANN should do was to send a request to WIPO to call
for built another framework more compatible with this new reality.
Best,

Vanda Scartezini
POLO Consultores Associados
&  IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
Mob + 5511 8181.1464

-----Original Message-----
From: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ
Crepin-Leblond
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:57 AM
To: At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: [At-Large] New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15
July 2009

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.

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 - 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. 

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.

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!

Warm regards,

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________
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