[Euro-board] WG: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: Re: [GTLD-WG] URGENT-ALAC statement on IRTP report

Sun May 3 08:54:49 EDT 2009

Wolf:

thank you for having forwarded Patrick's draft to the Euro list & to
here.

I, as an individual EURALO board member, am in complete agreement with 
this excellent draft, and also hope that if there is not enough time 
for ALAC to approve it formally, I hope that EURALO can act quickly 
enough to agree to it, in time for it to be formally submitted. The 
issues raised are *essential* to the ALAC's mission of being ICANN's 
conscience and I am very pleased that they are dealt with in such a 
professional and concise manner by ALAC.

Erratum:

- Under: "Whois requirements for new service"
We are surprised the only reference to privacy in the report in the
report is about privacy as a (paid for) service.

-> we are surprised THAT the only reference...
-> note the repeat of "in the report"

Next paragraph: replace "Further" with "Furthermore"

Further discussion

I attended a meeting of Internet experts under Chatham House Rules in
London last week and the matter came up for discussion.
The general concensus around the table was that ICANN was setting a
dangerous precedent in stepping into areas it should not step into re:
several issues. The issue of Copyright is an age-old issue which is
very complex and near intractable to deal with internationally. WIPO
is the agency specifically in charge of this, and its budget which is 
in
excess of 600 Million Swiss Francs is huge compared to the ICANN
budget for these matters. ICANN risks burdening itself by shifting
the Copyright battlefield into its own home, and risks wasting such
resources instead of following its real mission, as defined in the JPA
agreement. Expect to hear criticism re: that wrt post-JPA.

My own comment is that I have a real concern re: capture. This 
process,
it seems, is being rushed through and might be a form of capture by a
community (namely IP lawyers) - and such capture is also being
suspected by others - and this will *not* play in ICANN's favour.
I am not sure if is would be politically correct for EURALO to raise 
the "capture danger" flag. Perhaps it is completely outside the scope 
of EURALO. Perhaps I am mistaken and see capture where there isn't, 
but I believe there is no smoke without fire and the speed and manner 
in which the IRTP working group has been set-up and is operating, 
including the limited amount of time it is allowing for external 
comments, make me raise my eyebrows and feel uncomfortable.

Since I have no posting privilege on the ALAC-Internal list, please
feel free to forward where necessary/desired.

Kind regards,

Olivier

Ref: Chatham House Rule
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wolf Ludwig" <wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net>
To: "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick at vande-walle.eu>
Cc: "Euro Board" <euro-board at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 10:48 PM
Subject: [Euro-board] WG: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: Re: [GTLD-WG]
URGENT-ALAC statement on IRTP report

> Dear Patrick again,
>
> just in case, your draft statement on the IRTP report will NOT be
> approved in time / until next Monday by ALAC, I suggest to submit it
> on behalf of EURALO at least. It would be sad if this/your statement
> wouldn't be approved and forwarded in time! Any comments by other
> Board members?
>
> Best,
> Wolf
>
>
> Wolf Ludwig wrote Sat, 02 May 2009 22:37:
>>Dear Patrick,
>>
>>thanks a lot for your draft of a (ALAC) statement on the IRTP
>>report. Your draft actually reflects most of my concerns and I hope
>>it will be approved by the ALAC, given the narrow deadline of May
>>5th (what means next Tuesday!). Thanks again for your excellent work
>>and
>>
>>kind regards,
>>Wolf
>>
>>
>>Patrick Vande Walle wrote Sat, 02 May 2009 21:38:
>>>To follow up  on the request made during last week's
>>>teleconference, I
>>>have drafted the following statement.
>>>https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?draft_statements_related_to_irt_s_remit_from_at_large
>>>
>>>The discussions on the new gtld list focused mainly on the
>>>composition
>>>of the IRTP working group, its lack of balance and the fact that
>>>most
>>>members were from - or close to - the IPC.  Several members of
>>>At-Large
>>>mentioned they volunteered for the WG, but were not included.
>>>Hong had concerns regarding the fact that these proposed rules were
>>>in
>>>contradiction with international trade mark law. Bret Faussett made
>>>a
>>>comment about the fact the URS process is not limited in time. His
>>>comment is included in extenso.
>>>
>>>The draft statement tries to capture all these remarks.
>>>
>>>I am not sure which process the chair wishes to follow to have some
>>>some
>>>of approval from the ALAC, given the deadline is May 5th.
>>>
>>>Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>ALAC-Internal mailing list
>>>ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>
>>>ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>>>At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>>
>>
>>comunica-ch
>>phone +41 79 204 83 87
>>Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
>>www.comunica-ch.net
>>
>>Digitale Allemd
>>http://blog.allmend.ch -
>>
>>EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
>>http://euralo.org
>>
>
> comunica-ch
> phone +41 79 204 83 87
> Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
> www.comunica-ch.net
>
> Digitale Allemd
> http://blog.allmend.ch -
>
> EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
> http://euralo.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Euro-board mailing list
> Euro-board at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-board_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>