ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Help with uploading IOC/RC comment

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>, gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Help with uploading IOC/RC comment
  • From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:01:15 +0200

Hi everybody,
I got confirmation from some GAC members that regardless of some "dissidend 
voices" within the GAC, the written position is the written position and there 
is no new language in the San Jose GAC Communique. However, there is growing 
doubt among a growing number of GAC members, whether this is the final word 
also tomorrow and how the proposed language today would look like in the light 
of the forthcoming advice to the Board on the IGO letter. My impression is that 
the GAC finds itself trapped now, but has to keep the face and can not paddle 
backwards. Governments have to be - as we know from Nitin Desai - "successful" 
or "outstanding successful". They do not make mistakes. 
This brings the GNSO Council into a delicate position: Do we want to please GAC 
& Board by delivering what they expect in their request? Do we come with an own 
(alternative) more "neutral" language?  Or do we say just "no"? 
BTW, for me it is also unclear, what really will happen if the GNSO Council 
votes "Yes", or "No" or adopts "New Language". Will the Board adopt a 
resolution before April 12?. Will they change the Applicant Guidebook (which 
could trigger a wave of protest by all the hundreds applicants which would 
blame ICANN to change the rule within an ongoing process) or will the Board 
ignore the GNSO Council motion/advice and do nothing? Just waiting for the 
concrete case (which probably will never appear and the whole discussion 
remains a "purely academic excersice")?     
Anyhow, however this will end, this enriches our knowledge about the procedural 
complexity within the ICANN machinery. Will ask a student to write a paper 
about this :-)))) is al this is over and we will deal with real issue on the 
SDL level and in round 2. 


Von: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Mo 26.03.2012 04:11
An: Margie Milam; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Help with uploading IOC/RC comment

I want to compliment the  NCSG policy committee for a well written statement.

What I do not understand is why the statement makes no reference to the 
amendments to the motion that were discussed by the DT last week and were 
supposed to be discussed by the various SGs and constituencies.  Would those 
amendments satisfy the requests made in the statement?  If not, why not?  It 
would have been much more helpful if this was made clear in the statement 
before the Council meeting.

Also, I don't understand this claim in the statement: "It is not currently 
clear whether and to what extent the question of whether there is GAC consensus 
on the appropriate legal protections for these organizations vis-à-vis those 
being requested for the IOC and RC has been fully debated within the GAC, or 
will be."  It is my understanding that it was made clear in the joint GNSO/GAC 
meeting that the GAC request was a GAC consensus position; that is certainly 
what I heard.  Is that clarification from the GAC now in dispute?  Do we 
disbelieve the claim made by the GAC?


From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 8:33 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Help with uploading IOC/RC comment


Dear All-


I am forwarding Mary's statement to the list since there seems to be some 
problem in the file.   I have sent to our technical group to correct, but 
wanted to make sure you had access to the NCSG statement in the interim.



From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 10:31 PM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Help with uploading IOC/RC comment


Hi Margie, I'm so sorry to be a pest, but for some reason the document I tried 
to upload to the ICANN Public Comment Forum for the IOC/RC proposals doesn't 
display as a Word document after upload (instead, all I get when I try to open 
it off the Forum thread page is gibberish). If you don't mind, could I trouble 
you to correct my upload (I attach the original document here) or have someone 
at ICANN tech figure out what went wrong? 


Thanks so much! I hope you had a nice time at the beach after the ICANN 
meeting, and look forward to seeing you again soon! 




Mary W S Wong 
Professor of Law 
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP 
Chair, Graduate IP Programs 
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: 
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the 
Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the 
University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire 
School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow 
the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more information on the 
University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu 

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy