[EURO-Discuss] Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: Re: [GTLD-WG] URGENT- ALAC statement on IRTP report

[Adam Peake]

(sent this to the thread on the board list by mistake, apologies for 
the duplicate)



I support the statement.  Patrick, thank you.

One thing bothering me about the URS or any takedown system for that 
matter is how to guard against frivolous or knowingly false use of 
the process - where the request is groundless, the equivalent of the 
random takedown notices sent for YouTube etc, e.g. see Lessig and 
Warner bros 
<http://www.lessig.org/blog/2009/04/update_on_warner_music.html>

I know some trademarks legislation imposes criminal penalties for 
"groundless threats of legal action", how about some kind of penalty 
for groundless threats of takedown...

I am not suggesting amending the statement, it's good.

Adam






>Good morning to all.
>
>I am moving this discussion to the general Euralo list in the hope to fuel
>discussion and/or agreement.
>
>Some context:
>
>I was tasked by the ALAC to draft a preliminary statement on the IRTP
>report http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#irtpdr
>The deadline for submitting comments to the IRTP drafting group is 6 May at
>00:00 UTC
>
>Given that the procedures inside the ALAC may actually make it difficult to
>agree on the comments before the deadline, the Euralo chair suggested to
>the Euralo board that the Euralo should submit the draft comments on its
>own behalf.
>
>Up to now, the draft has received quite some support from Euralo board
>members.
>
>https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?draft_statements_related_to_irt_s_remit_from_at_large
>
>Please note that this *preliminary* statement may always be revised later.
>However, we should keep in mind that it will set the overall direction of
>our comments. Hence, if you disagree on the fundamentals of this draft,
>please say so now.
>
>Thanks for your help,
>
>Patrick Vande Walle
>
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: Re: [GTLD-WG] URGENT- ALAC
>statement on IRTP	 report
>Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 22:37:01 +0200
>From: Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net>
>To: "Discussion for At-Large Europe" <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>Reply-To: Discussion for At-Large Europe
><euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>
>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
>>
>
>--
>Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
>Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw
>Identica: http://identi.ca/patrickv
>
>_______________________________________________
>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org