Review of Public Comments Sample Clauses

Review of Public Comments. On June 5, 2009, ICANN staff published a summary of the comments it received on the IRT draft report.56 The comments center around six specific areas: the timeline and IRT’s processes in general; the IP Clearinghouse, Globally Protected Marks List (GPML), and Watch Service; the Uniform Rapid Response System (URS); the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Mechanism; Whois; and the algorithm to help review string confusion issues. Among the most common criticisms were that the IRT’s recommendations were “outside the scope of trademark law and outside scope of ICANN.”

Review of Public Comments. ICANN staff released a 15-page summary and analysis of public comments on the final IRT report on October 4, 2009.59 This summary included both comments received through the online forum and comments made during public sessions on the IRT’s proposed Post-Delegation Dispute Mechanism held in Sydney, New York and London. The IRT process was criticized as being overly hurried and exclusionary, to the extent that some commentators questioned whether the process was “controlled” by intellectual property interests. In a statement delivered at the Sydney ICANN meeting in June 2009, the At-Large Community, the At-Large Advisory Committee and the Non-Commercial Users Constituency noted that the Whois requirement did not take into account international privacy standards or national laws protecting privacy. The statement also claimed that “in the case of the IRT Report, we had neither transparency nor openness “ and announced ALAC and NCUC’s formal opposition to the GPML, Uniform Rapid Suspension System and thick Whois proposals.60 57 ALAC, “Statement on the IRT Draft Report: Response of the ALAC to the Public Comment Period on the IRT Draft Report,” May 12, 2009, xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxxxx.xxx/files/atlarge/alac-statement-draft-irt-report- 12may09-en.pdf. 58 ICANN, “Public Comment: Trademark Protection (IRT Final Report),” May 29, 2009, xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxx/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm. 59 ICANN, “Comment and Analysis on IRT Report: Post-Delegation Dispute Mechanism and Other Topics,” October 4, 2009, xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxx/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-irt-final-report-04oct09- en.pdf. 60 ICANN, “Joint Statement from ALAC/At-Large and NCUC made at Sydney Meeting re IRT Report,” June 25, 2009, xxxx://xx.xxxxx.xxx/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?at_large_irt_process_working_group. Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, posting to the public forum on behalf of the NCUC, outlined several concerns regarding the IRT’s final draft and process.61 Among the NCUC’s concerns was the fact that the views of registrants, be they individual, noncommercial or commercial in nature, had been “noticeable [sic] absent” during the IRT. The NCUC characterized the IRT’s process as “Masonic,” pointing out that the IRT had provided no information about its meetings and no updates on the progress of its work. The NCUC also argued that the implementation of the IRT recommendations would fall beyond ICANN’s technical mandate and scope.