<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [soac-mapo] New 4.1 language
- To: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] New 4.1 language
- From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:20:46 +0100
+1
KK
On 14/09/2010 17:36, "Robin Gross" <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think the 3 points summarized below are good encapsulations of what we have
been driving at, so let's get this clear unambiguous language into the report.
Robin
On Sep 14, 2010, at 2:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I agree that Chuck's questions are good ones and need to be answered.
What we want, I think, is _both_ an option for the board to get expert advice,
_and_ an entity that handles the procedural aspects of processing objections.
Whether those functions are bundled or not is perhaps an implementation detail
that can be left to others to decide.
We some of us also want, is
a) the expert advisors not to make a decision
b) the Board, when it makes the decision to veto a gTLD on Rec 6 ground, to
require a supermajority
c) the Board's voting threshold should be unaffected by the expert group's
recommendation or advice. If it says, Yes, No or Maybe, the board still should
need a supermajority to veto it. Again, that is because the TLD should be so
clearly repugnant and the advice so unambiguous that the supermajority of the
board would be persuaded
From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 4:15 AM
To: Mary Wong; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] New 4.1 language
Thanks Mary for continuing to work on this language. I encourage others to
comment and just want to communicate some questions I have. Regarding "it
may appoint a third party entity to administer the purely procedural aspects of
an objection that has been filed. Such a provider shall be appointed under
contract for a fixed period of time appropriate for the application timetable.
It shall not provide expert advice nor recommendations regarding the outcome of
an objection, although it may, if requested by the Board, assist in seeking
appropriate international law experts for particular objections." do we care
whether ICANN uses a third party to perform administrative functions or not?
Wouldn 't the third party need a high level of expertise just to qualify
"appropriate international law experts for particular objections" ? ICANN
staff has already done a lot of work in identifying possible legal experts; if
a third party helps, good; maybe they have already used a third party. If a
third party that has the expertise needed to recommend expert panelists, I
don't think it would make sense from a cost perspective to have them "the
purely procedural aspects of an objection that has been filed".
Chuck
From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mary Wong
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 5:59 PM
To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [soac-mapo] New 4.1 language
Would this work better as a possible replacement for the existing Rec. 4.1
language?
"In addition to the Board's ability to seek external expert advice under
Article XI.A of the Bylaws, it may appoint a third party entity to administer
the purely procedural aspects of an objection that has been filed. Such a
provider shall be appointed under contract for a fixed period of time
appropriate for the application timetable. It shall not provide expert advice
nor recommendations regarding the outcome of an objection, although it may, if
requested by the Board, assist in seeking appropriate international law experts
for particular objections. 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 an objection.''
Cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
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
<http://law.unh.edu>
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|