Re: [soac-mapo] New language for 4.1

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

As I read the comments, I wonder about the eminent advice only coming from 
jurists.
Might not, e.g. a linguist or more specifically a semanticist also be helpful 
in giving advice.

a.




On 16 Sep 2010, at 12:14, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:

> 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
> 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 
> visitlaw.unh.edu