Re: [ga] Seven Business Day comment period for IRT Draft Report is unacceptable

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

George,
Links are always nice George, it is just kind of a politeness gig.
http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-24apr09-en.htm
Note it has not come out on ICANN/Announce yet. (is there really an obudsman?)
I think this is a cross post. hmmm? Not really. Anyone care?
 
Here is some text:
 

IRT Draft Report on Trademark Protection Issues Now Available for Public Comment
24 April 2009
The Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) (Members of the IRT are listed 
here [PDF, 88K]) was formed by ICANN's Intellectual Property Constituency in 
accordance with the 6 March, 2009 ICANN Board resolution 
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm). The resolution was 
in response to the request by the community seeking solutions for potential 
issues for trademark holders in the implementation of new gTLDs. The team 
reflects experiential and geographic diversity and is comprised of 18 members 
and two alternates.
The IRT team has participated in numerous teleconferences and a two-day 
face-to-face meeting resulting in a draft recommendations report on Trademark 
Protection Issues and have identified several proposed solutions that are 
described in:

Introduction 
IP Clearinghouse, Globally Protected Marks List and other top and second rights 
protection mechanisms; 
Draft Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Procedure; 
Post delegation dispute resolution mechanisms at the top level; 
Thick Whois model requirements for new TLDs; and 
Use of algorithm in string confusion review during initial evaluation. 
This Draft IRT Report [PDF, 431K] will be posted for a thirty (30) day comment 
period that closes on 24 May, 2009. However, those wishing to have the IRT 
consider their comments in connection with its final report should submit 
comments by 6 May, 2009. Comments can be sent to irtp-draft-report@xxxxxxxxx 
and reviewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-draft-report/.
The final report is expected to be published by 24 May 2009. The community will 
have additional opportunity to discuss the IRT proposal in an open forum 
discussion at the Sydney Meeting and in public consultations conducted by ICANN 
to be announced in the near future.
For additional information:
WIKI for Overarching Issues discussions: 
https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?new_gtld_overarching_issues
New gTLD Page: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm


--- On Sat, 4/25/09, George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ga] Seven Business Day comment period for IRT Draft Report is 
unacceptable
To: irtp-draft-report@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, April 25, 2009, 9:48 AM


We object to the extremely short comment period for this report, and the method
by which it was drafted.

It was released at the end of the day on April 24, 2009 (a Friday) We are told
that "those wishing to have the IRT consider their comments in connection
with its final report should submit comments by 6 May, 2009." Given that
May 1st is a holiday in a large number of countries, this leaves many people
with only 7 (seven) or at best 8 (eight) business days in which to read the
report, consult with colleagues, and write a coherent response to a lengthy
document.

Given the IRT's extreme lack of transparency and its very narrow
representation of interests (i.e. it was not an open GNSO workgroup or task
force where any stakeholder could join; there was no public mailing list archive
or MP3 recordings/transcripts of meetings), it is unclear whether any responses
submitted by the May 6 deadline will even be considered, especially given that
detailed comments and recommendations made to the DAG v1 and v2 reports did not
receive any apparent consideration by the committee in this draft report. There
is no public audit-trail of any discussions leading up to this report, but it
instead appears to be a rehashing of certain "wish list" items by a
narrow few in the community, instead of a balanced proposal representative of
all stakeholders.

The IRT is working within artificial deadlines imposed by the ICANN Board in
its March 6th resolution. We recommend that the IRT go back to the Board to
advocate that these artificial deadlines need to be rethought. Given the
comments overwhelmingly opposed to new gTLDs both in the first and second
versions of the DAG (with the 2nd comment period ending only last week), ICANN
has not justified that the gTLD program should go forward in any form, and not
justified the colossal misuse of time that could be better spent on important
issues such as DNSSEC, IPv6 and IDN ccTLDs, and fixing problems in existing
gTLDs. It is our hope that the NTIA/DOC/DOJ will provide ICANN with far clearer
and direct guidance in this regard, as it is clear to us that certain minority
interests have captured the agenda at ICANN and are setting its plans to the
detriment of the public.

There is no "pressing need" that a final report be delivered by May
24, 2009, especially given that the Sydney meeting begins on June 21, 2009. A
rushed job will not lead to a solution that has consensus support, and forming
consensus is ICANN's mission. If a consensus cannot be reached, ICANN has to
realize that the matter might be a threshold issue that must lead to continued
study and work, rather than proceeding with half-baked solutions over the
objections of a large number of stakeholders.

We note the comment period for version 1 of the DAG closed on January 7, 2009
(after 76 days), and allowed for translation into multiple languages before the
end of the comment period. Analysis and summary of those comments by ICANN staff
were released to the public on February 18, 2009, namely 42 days later (at which
time version 2 of the DAG was also released). We would expect the IRT, if
it's to even have a remote possibility of reaching a global consensus, would
need similar time periods. At a minimum, the time periods should be shifted so
that public comments are due 2 weeks before Sydney, with analysis of those
comments to be released just before Sydney, and discussion to take place during
Sydney. A final report would then be released a few weeks after Sydney, with a
further comment period on that final report.

In conclusion, we look forward to the IRT's realization that the current
schedule is needlessly rushed, and requires adjustment. We expect that the IRT
will make in the immediate future a clarifying announcement with a reasonable
time frame for comments if it expects to maintain the goodwill of the community
in its ongoing efforts to reach a consensus. We also expect that they will
positively respond to the request for public archives of mailing lists and MP3
recordings/transcripts in order to improve transparency.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
President
Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
http://www.leap.com/