ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[soac-mapo]


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

Re: [soac-mapo] New 4.1 language

  • To: soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] New 4.1 language
  • From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:36:52 -0700

I think the 3 points summarized below are good encapsulations of what we have been driving at, so let's get this clear unambiguous language into the report.

Robin

On Sep 14, 2010, at 2:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

I agree that Chuck’s questions are good ones and need to be answered.

What we want, I think, is _both_ an option for the board to get expert advice, _and_ an entity that handles the procedural aspects of processing objections. Whether those functions are bundled or not is perhaps an implementation detail that can be left to others to decide.

We some of us also want, is

a)  the expert advisors not to make a decision
b) the Board, when it makes the decision to veto a gTLD on Rec 6 ground, to require a supermajority c) the Board’s voting threshold should be unaffected by the expert group’s recommendation or advice. If it says, Yes, No or Maybe, the board still should need a supermajority to veto it. Again, that is because the TLD should be so clearly repugnant and the advice so unambiguous that the supermajority of the board would be persuaded From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 4:15 AM
To: Mary Wong; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] New 4.1 language


Thanks Mary for continuing to work on this language. I encourage others to comment and just want to communicate some questions I have. Regarding “it may appoint a third party entity to administer the purely procedural aspects of an objection that has been filed. Such a provider shall be appointed under contract for a fixed period of time appropriate for the application timetable. It shall not provide expert advice nor recommendations regarding the outcome of an objection, although it may, if requested by the Board, assist in seeking appropriate international law experts for particular objections.” do we care whether ICANN uses a third party to perform administrative functions or not? Wouldn ‘t the third party need a high level of expertise just to qualify “appropriate international law experts for particular objections” ? ICANN staff has already done a lot of work in identifying possible legal experts; if a third party helps, good; maybe they have already used a third party. If a third party that has the expertise needed to recommend expert panelists, I don’t think it would make sense from a cost perspective to have them “the purely procedural aspects of an objection that has been filed”.

Chuck



From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 5:59 PM
To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [soac-mapo] New 4.1 language


Would this work better as a possible replacement for the existing Rec. 4.1 language?

"In addition to the Board's ability to seek external expert advice under Article XI.A of the Bylaws, it may appoint a third party entity to administer the purely procedural aspects of an objection that has been filed. Such a provider shall be appointed under contract for a fixed period of time appropriate for the application timetable. It shall not provide expert advice nor recommendations regarding the outcome of an objection, although it may, if requested by the Board, assist in seeking appropriate international law experts for particular objections. As in all other areas of ICANN policy, the Board will ultimately decide whether to adopt or reject the advice of any external experts it consults in relation to an objection.''

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


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




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx





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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy