RE: [soac-mapo] Draft Rec for "Incitement" (for Summary of Issues/Recommendations)

["Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think that's a point for discussion - I believe that some members are against 
the use of the term "incitement" while others (like me) have less of an issue 
with that than with "promotion" (which is why I suggested removing "promotion" 
instead). 
 
One option may be to come up with an acceptable replacement for "incitement" 
while removing "promotion", so that what remains is the replacement word. I 
have to confess I haven't delved more deeply into this, and my instinctive 
reaction is to ask whether it would be possible to insert a clearer and 
possibly more restricted word to replace "incitement", which has a fairly 
established legal meaning. I haven't had a chance to discuss this with 
Konstantinos or others, though. 
 
Is there time to also consult Carroll?
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
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

>>> 


From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:"Konstantinos Komaitis" <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mary Wong" 
<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "soac-mapo" <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 9/9/2010 6:36 PM
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Draft Rec for "Incitement" (for Summary of  
Issues/Recommendations)
Did I misunderstand the statement/recommendation drafted by Mary?  I
didn't understand that it recommended that the term 'incitement' be
removed but rather that the term 'promotion' be removed: " The term
"promotion" should be removed from the AGB. (Mary Wong)"

If we removed both terms, wouldn't we be eliminating all three
categories?  Is that the intent?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 6:21 PM
> To: Mary Wong; soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Draft Rec for "Incitement" (for Summary of
> Issues/Recommendations)
> 
> 
> Thanks Mary for this. I agree - 'incitement' is an unfit term for this
> process and is used erroneously. I support the recommendation for the
> term to be removed.
> 
> 
> KK
> 
> 
> On 09/09/2010 23:01, "Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> I agree, and note that Richard used the phrase "Principles of Ordre
> Publique" in an earlier email. I've adopted it in the attached draft
> recommendation on the use of the term "incitement" (and thank
> Konstantinos for starting the draft and dredging up the various emails
> concerning the issue!)
> 
> I've also used the same font as Margie, in the hope it will facilitate
> editing and insertion.
> 
> Something on Quick Look to follow, shortly .... (I hope :)
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH
> 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage:
> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available
> on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> 
> >>>
> From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>, soac-mapo <soac-
> mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 9/9/2010 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Summary of Issues/Recommendations
> Dear Margie,
> 
> Thanks for this, it is really helpful.
> 
> One point - I think we decided at this point to use the term 'ordre
> publique' and abandon the term 'public interest' when it comes to
> objections. I think 'ordre publique' came out of our discussion with
> Carroll and it is something that Mary also suggested (?).
> 
> Thanks
> 
> KK
> 
> 
> On 09/09/2010 19:33, "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Please find enclosed for your review suggested language that
summarizes
> the topics discussed and the proposed recommendations.  Although some
> of you are working on language to insert in this document, I thought
> this might serve as a starting point for you.
> 
> It is very difficult to glean all of the details from the email list,
> so please accept my apologies if I misstated the principles or the
> recommendations.   Also,  there are areas where I was unable to sketch
> an outline of the issue or proposed recommendation, such as the Quick
> Look Procedure, Timing of Rec6 Dispute, and Guidebook Criterion 4.
> Hopefully volunteers can assist in describing the issue and proposed
> resolution.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Margie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  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 <http://law.unh.edu>
> 




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