Re: [soac-mapo] New 4.1 language

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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