RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Help with uploading IOC/RC comment
Thanks Mary. The changes to the motion you describe below were the ones that the DT wanted to get more feedback on from our various groups. The motion, if amended, would look like the redline version attached. If I understand you correctly, the NCSG PC would still not support the motion, even with these amendments. Is that correct? Chuck From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 9:49 AM To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Margie Milam; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Gomes, Chuck Subject: AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Help with uploading IOC/RC comment 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 Attachment:
IOC RC MOtion with amendments 21 Mar 12 (redline).docx
|