Re: [soac-mapo] New 4.1 language

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

KK


On 14/09/2010 17:36, "Robin Gross" <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 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 
<http://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