RE: [soac-mapo] New language for 4.1

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mary for the quick response to my request.  I encourage others to
comment on the recommendations proposed below.   Note that I inserted
some personal comments/questions below.

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 12:19 AM
To: soac-mapo
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] New language for 4.1

 

Hello everyone,

 

As Chuck requests, here is another attempt at reformulating Rec. 4.1.
I've tried to take on board much of Evan's suggested language, although
I know I have not necessarily made a distinction between policy and
implementation. FWIW I think that, even if we are occasionally in the
realm of implementation, it provides clearer guidance for the future,
and gives a better view of what's been discussed amongst this group, if
the group's sense of what ought to be done (whether it be implementation
details or not, and whether such opinion is ultimately followed or not)
is included in our report.

 

Thanks,
Mary (new language follows, below)

 

REC. 4.1:

The Board should seek the advice of eminent jurists well-versed in
international law for all Rec. 6 objections, following the procedures
outlined in Article XI.A of the Bylaws. In addition, the CWG recommends
that the Board appoint a third party entity to administer the purely
procedural aspects of an objection that has been filed, including
suggesting appropriate persons who can serve as experts. Any such third
party provider shall be appointed under contract for a fixed period of
time appropriate for the application timetable. In no event will any
such provider give expert advice or recommendations regarding the
outcome of an objection, it being understood that such decision lies
with the Board alone and may not be delegated to a third party. 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 a Rec. 6 objection.

[Gomes, Chuck] Do I understand this correctly that the "third party
entity to administer the purely procedural aspects" would be in addition
to any panel of experts so that there would be a need to contract with
two independent groups (i.e., an administrative group and a panel of
experts)?

 

Why do you think a third party is needed to perform administrative
tasks?  I am not necessarily opposed to that but I am concerned that it
would raise costs that are already quite high. 

 

I understand that the administrative panel would not give expert advice
regarding any string in question, but it seems to me that they would
have to have a reasonable level of expertise to suggest "appropriate
persons who can serve as experts".  Contracting with experts to do
administrative tasks does not seem to me like a good use of funds and
would raise overall costs of the procedure.

 

 

From: 

"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

To:

"Konstantinos Komaitis" <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Robin Gross"
<robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "soac-mapo" <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>, "Mary Wong"
<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: 

9/15/2010 8:53 PM

Subject: 

RE: [soac-mapo] Please participate - Poll on updated recommendations

I would like to request that Evan and Mary resubmit their latest
recommendations for wording of recommendations 4.1 and 4.2 so that we
can all take a look at them again and make sure that we are all
evaluating the latest wording.  I am assuming that what they proposed
covers both 4.1 and 4.2; if that is not correct, let me know.
Regardless, please submit your latest versions.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:40 PM
> To: Robin Gross; soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Please participate - Poll on updated
> recommendations
> 
> Thanks Chuck,
> 
> Here is an updated version of the document with comments on the issue
> of the Board's discretion to seek advise.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> KK
> 
> 
> On 15/09/2010 18:38, "Robin Gross" <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for this, Chuck.
> 
> I commented in the attached document about your question in Rec. 2.3
to
> change a "notification" to an "objection" without it being an
> "objection".
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 

 

 

 

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 <http://law.unh.edu>