Re: [soac-mapo] New 4.1 language

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

On point a) I don't believe we have agreement on whether or not the expert 
advisors should provide a recommendation.  

RT



On Sep 14, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Robin Gross wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
>