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

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks much to Margie for forwarding the NCSG Policy Committee
statement to this group; my apologies for the technical difficulties I
had in uploading it to the forum. 

To clarify the two points Chuck raised: 
- it was out understanding that the only change the majority of the DT
proposed to make to its original recommendations on Wednesday was to Rec
3, and that Rec 2 would have been changed to the limitations agreed on
by the IOC/RCRC in Costa Rica. What we perhaps ought to have made clear
in our statement was that while these were considered improvements by a
number of PC members, they did not alter the basis of our overall
objection, which was that the thoughtful work of the DT would at this
late stage be more appropriately considered as improvements for the
second round, in concert with the possibility of developing more generic
criteria for such organizations. 

- the sentence about GAC consensus referred to the fact that while we
know the GAC is only requesting these protections for the IOC and RCRC
at this stage based on legal research they have that was done to date,
we did not know the level of discussion regarding or the likely content
of any GAC advice that might be formulated to deal with similar requests
made by other IGOs in this first round. Nor do we know whether any
analysis had been performed by or for the GAC as regards the specific
differences concerning international legal treatment of the other IGOs
vis-a-vis that for the IOC/RCRC. 

I hope this helps. 

Thanks and cheers 
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
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 


>>> 


From:  
"Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang"<wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

To: 
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Margie Milam
<Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 

Date:  
3/26/2012 4:03 AM 

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


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.

Wolfgang

________________________________

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?

Chuck

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-

FYI-

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.

Margie



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!



Cheers

Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
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