[lac-discuss-en] [GTLD-WG] IRT working group report

[Evan Leibovitch]

Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
> To be honest, I am not naive enough to expect anything else from this
> group. 
> Still, I think it is ALAC's task to express its concerns. We have to
> make clear to the board that we do not stand behind this report, both on :
>
>     * how this has been hurried through and short-circuited most of the
>       community
>     * the proposals in the report.
>   

Exactly. We really have only one channel open to us, and that is through
the ability to address the board directly.

We are able to make clear the total lack of real public involvement in
this and ensure that the Board understands the report to be the POV of a
single constituency rather than a community consensus.

I am reminded at this point of the comments made in a message by Alan
when the first concerns arose about the lack of consumer perspective in
the IRTP:

> I pointed out to Steve Metalitz, IPC President, that the Board motion
> creating the IRT call for "internationally diverse group of persons
> with knowledge, expertise, and experience in the fields of trademark,
> consumer protection, or competition law, and the interplay of
> trademarks and the domain name system" and that based on the
> membership list, it was not clear how the consumer protection aspect
> was addressed. His answer is below:
>
> "I believe that several members of the IRT qualify as having
> knowledge, expertise and experience in consumer protection law.  For
> instance, both Kristina Rosette and J. Scott Evans have experience
> handling consumer protection issues that come before the Federal Trade
> Commission.  Mark Partridge also has experience with consumer
> protection cases under state law and has served as an arbitrator in
> such cases.  Kiyoshi Tsuru has counseled clients and litigated cases
> on consumer protection matters, and has trained consumer protection
> officials on Internet issues.  So I believe that area of expertise is
> represented on the IRT, although of course I would also encourage
> consumer protection organizations to comment and provide their
> perspectives on the work product of the IRT, beginning with the draft
> report that the Board has directed the IRT to release on April 24.  I
> hope that this helps in responding to the question that has been posed
> to you."

There is no question to me that the public interest has been utterly
deceived by this process. The fact that veterans within At-Large are
aware of such ongoing deception (and come to expect it as standard
practise) does not negate its harmful effect.

- Evan