Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC

[Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>]

Prior rights to object?  Where?  Under what jurisdiction?  In the  
ICANN environment the GAC is an Advisory Committee, nothing more.
Liz
...

Liz Williams
+44 1963 364 380
+44 7824 877 757



On 14 May 2009, at 19:07, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> I disagree, Liz. There are cases where prior rights do exist. We  
> all have to recognize that just like the GNSO reform is highly  
> flawed, although it has been underway even longer, the GTLD policy  
> recommendations have many serious flaws", and inadequacies.
> I already noted that I would not support the letter, and support  
> abstention. But I respond now because I actually disagree with your  
> point about parties having rights to object. We all have to  
> understand that governments, as sovereign states, do not give up  
> certain responsibilities for public policy irregardless of where  
> they are "working"
> The .tavel and .info registries launched with reserve list of  
> country names at the second level. I see no reason for that not to  
> provide an approach that is scalable, but there will still have to  
> be an objection process. In my personal view.
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>
>
> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:26:27
> To: <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
> Cc: <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
>
>
> Philip
>
>
> The critical element is that one set of objectors cannot have a  
> power of veto that others do not.  An objector cannot also unfairly  
> undermine legitimate which with they may just happen to disagreed.   
> Circumventing a specialised process is exactly what 2.5 years of  
> policy development was supposed to prevent.
>
> I support the Council's position.
>
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
> Liz Williams
> +44 1963 364 380
> +44 7824 877 757
>
>
>
>
>
> On 14 May 2009, at 13:20, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> <GNSO Council to GAC May 2009 V4.doc>