RE: [soac-mapo] New language for 4.1

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for this Mary - it is very helpful. Here are my comments:
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.
For me, this advice is a 'must' and I am not sure whether we even need to make 
reference to Article XI.A of the Bylaws. This Article gives discretion to the 
Board to seek advice, whilst for me, in these cases, advice should always be 
sought.

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,
Agreed!

including suggesting appropriate persons who can serve as experts.
This, I don't understand. Will the administrative third party entity also be in 
the position to suggest experts? If so, then I don't agree with this and I 
don't see how an administrative body will be in the position to suggest experts.

Any such third party provider shall be appointed under contract for a fixed 
period of time appropriate for the application timetable.
Agreed!

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.
Agreed!
KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Law Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
The Lord Hope Building,
141 St. James Road,
Glasgow, G4 0LT
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org


From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 5:19 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.


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<mailto: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>