RE: [soac-mapo] New language for 4.1

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

Good point Avri.  That change to some of our recommendations seems like
a fairly easy one to make.  In fact, maybe it would be easier to add a
17th recommendation along these lines:  "International legal expertise
should be complemented with other needed expertise such as linguists."

Marika/Margie - Please add this as item 17 in the next poll with any
changes that might be suggested between now and when it is initiated
later today.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 5:23 AM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] New language for 4.1
> 
> 
> 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
>