Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Help with uploading IOC/RC comment

[Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree.  the doubt expressed wrt GAC consensus oes not stand up.  Also, the 
concerns expressed are not new and are the same as those discussed in Costa 
Rica.  the NCSG consent to move forward was only subject to the consideration 
of public comments.  that has been done.  its time to vote.




Best regards, 

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com

Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being 
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please 
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by 
mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the 
intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute 
privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The 
reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever 
of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by 
electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use 
of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & 
Jamil is prohibited.

Sent from my iPad

On 25 Mar 2012, at 22:11, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I want to compliment the  NCSG policy committee for a well written statement.
> 
> What I do not understand is why the statement makes no reference to the 
> amendments to the motion that were discussed by the DT last week and were 
> supposed to be discussed by the various SGs and constituencies.  Would those 
> amendments satisfy the requests made in the statement?  If not, why not?  It 
> would have been much more helpful if this was made clear in the statement 
> before the Council meeting.
> 
> Also, I don’t understand this claim in the statement: “It is not currently 
> clear whether and to what extent the question of whether there is GAC 
> consensus on the appropriate legal protections for these organizations 
> vis-à-vis those being requested for the IOC and RC has been fully debated 
> within the GAC, or will be.”  It is my understanding that it was made clear 
> in the joint GNSO/GAC meeting that the GAC request was a GAC consensus 
> position; that is certainly what I heard.  Is that clarification from the GAC 
> now in dispute?  Do we disbelieve the claim made by the GAC?
> 
> Chuck
> 
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Margie Milam
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 8:33 PM
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Help with uploading IOC/RC comment
>  
> 
> Dear All-
> 
> FYI-
> 
> I am forwarding Mary’s statement to the list since there seems to be some 
> problem in the file.   I have sent to our technical group to correct, but 
> wanted to make sure you had access to the NCSG statement in the interim.
> 
> Margie
> 
>  
> 
> From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 10:31 PM
> To: Margie Milam
> Subject: Help with uploading IOC/RC comment
>  
> 
> Hi Margie, I'm so sorry to be a pest, but for some reason the document I 
> tried to upload to the ICANN Public Comment Forum for the IOC/RC proposals 
> doesn't display as a Word document after upload (instead, all I get when I 
> try to open it off the Forum thread page is gibberish). If you don't mind, 
> could I trouble you to correct my upload (I attach the original document 
> here) or have someone at ICANN tech figure out what went wrong?
>  
> Thanks so much! I hope you had a nice time at the beach after the ICANN 
> meeting, and look forward to seeing you again soon!
>  
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> Mary W S Wong 
> Professor of Law 
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP 
> 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