<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>If you’re going to expand this with bullets, you need to add a response to the main point the GAC was asserting: that reviewing UDRP is “destabilizing”. Such as:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>* a PDP does not presume that the UDRP will be changed; it simply allows all Stakeholders to explore and answer questions about whether it should be changed and if so, whether there is agreement on ways to change it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>* Consideration of changes will not “destabilize” the new gTLD process; on the contrary, if the UDRP has flaws we need to ensure that we fix them so that they are will not affect the operation of the URS.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> bkuerbis@gmail.com [mailto:bkuerbis@gmail.com] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Brenden Kuerbis<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 26, 2011 1:01 PM<br><b>To:</b> Konstantinos Komaitis<br><b>Cc:</b> Milton L Mueller; EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org; Avri org>; William Drake; Rafik Dammak; Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU; Wendy Seltzer<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ec-ncuc] NCUC letter to the GAC, RE UDRP<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Suggested edits attached.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Perfect!<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:<a href="mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a>]<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 9:52 AM<br>> To: Milton L Mueller; <a href="mailto:EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org">EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org</a><br>> Cc: Avri org>; Robin Gross; William Drake; <a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a>; Wendy<br>> Seltzer; Rafik Dammak<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>> Subject: Re: NCUC letter to the GAC, RE UDRP<br>><br>> Forgot to attach :)<br>><br>> KK<br>><br>> From: Konstantinos Komaitis<br>> <<a href="mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a>>><br>> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:50:54 +0100<br>> To: Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU">mueller@SYR.EDU</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>>>, "EC-<br>> <a href="mailto:NCUC@ipjustice.org">NCUC@ipjustice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org">EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org</a>>" <ec-<br>> <a href="mailto:ncuc@ipjustice.org">ncuc@ipjustice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:ec-ncuc@ipjustice.org">ec-ncuc@ipjustice.org</a>>><br>> Cc: "Avri org>" <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>>>, Robin Gross<br>> <<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>>>, William Drake<br>> <<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>>>,<br>> "<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a>>"<br>> <<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a>>>, Wendy Seltzer<br>> <<a href="mailto:wendy@seltzer.com">wendy@seltzer.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:wendy@seltzer.com">wendy@seltzer.com</a>>>, Rafik Dammak<br>> <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM">rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM">rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</a>>><br>> Subject: Re: NCUC letter to the GAC, RE UDRP<br>><br>> Shorter, amended version.<br>><br>> KK<br>><br>> From: Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU">mueller@SYR.EDU</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>>><br>> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:24:48 +0100<br>> To: Konstantinos Komaitis<br>> <<a href="mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a>>>, Milton L<br>> Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU">mueller@SYR.EDU</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>>>, "EC-<br>> <a href="mailto:NCUC@ipjustice.org">NCUC@ipjustice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org">EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org</a>>" <ec-<br>> <a href="mailto:ncuc@ipjustice.org">ncuc@ipjustice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:ec-ncuc@ipjustice.org">ec-ncuc@ipjustice.org</a>>><br>> Cc: "Avri org>" <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>>>, Robin Gross<br>> <<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>>>, William Drake<br>> <<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>>>,<br>> "<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a>>"<br>> <<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a>>>, Wendy Seltzer<br>> <<a href="mailto:wendy@seltzer.com">wendy@seltzer.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:wendy@seltzer.com">wendy@seltzer.com</a>>>, Rafik Dammak<br>> <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM">rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM">rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</a>>><br>> Subject: Re: NCUC letter to the GAC, RE UDRP<br>><br>> Up to you, but I don't think it burns any bridges to be simple & direct<br>> about what the letter is about. The risk otherwise is that they just<br>> don't read it.<br>><br>> Milton Mueller<br>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>><br>><br>> -----Original message-----<br>> From: Konstantinos Komaitis<br>> <<a href="mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a>>><br>> To: Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>>>, "EC-<br>> <a href="mailto:NCUC@ipjustice.org">NCUC@ipjustice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org">EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org</a>>" <ec-<br>> <a href="mailto:ncuc@ipjustice.org">ncuc@ipjustice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:ec-ncuc@ipjustice.org">ec-ncuc@ipjustice.org</a>>><br>> Cc: "Avri org>" <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>>>, Robin Gross<br>> <<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>>>, William Drake<br>> <<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>>>,<br>> "<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a>>"<br>> <<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a>>>, Wendy Seltzer<br>> <<a href="mailto:wendy@seltzer.com">wendy@seltzer.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:wendy@seltzer.com">wendy@seltzer.com</a>>>, Rafik Dammak<br>> <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM">rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM">rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</a>>><br>> Sent: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 13:15:51 GMT+00:00<br>> Subject: Re: NCUC letter to the GAC, RE UDRP<br>><br>> At this stage, I would prefer if we were to send a polite letter to the<br>> GAC instead of cutting bridges before we even started our dialogue with<br>> them.I could cut it shorter and insist on the point of the GAC has<br>> consulted with the IPC only - my understanding is that the Ry's and Rr's<br>> have not been consulted on this letter - am I wrong?<br>><br>> KK<br>><br>> From: Milton L Mueller<br>> <<a href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU">mueller@SYR.EDU</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>>><br>> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:01:51 +0100<br>> To: Konstantinos Komaitis<br>> <<a href="mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:k.komait">k.komait</a><br>> <a href="mailto:is@strath.ac.uk">is@strath.ac.uk</a>>>, "<a href="mailto:EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org">EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:EC-">EC-</a><br>> <a href="mailto:NCUC@ipjustice.org">NCUC@ipjustice.org</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org">EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org</a>>" <ec-<br>> <a href="mailto:ncuc@ipjustice.org">ncuc@ipjustice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:ec-ncuc@ipjustice.org">ec-ncuc@ipjustice.org</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:ec-">ec-</a><br>> <a href="mailto:ncuc@ipjustice.org">ncuc@ipjustice.org</a>>><br>> Cc: "Avri org>"<br>> <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>>>, Robin Gross<br>> <<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice">robin@ipjustice</a>.<br>> org>>, William Drake<br>> <<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:william.drake@">william.drake@</a><br>> <a href="http://uzh.ch" target="_blank">uzh.ch</a>>>,<br>> "<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LA">Mary.Wong@LA</a><br>> <a href="http://W.UNH.EDU" target="_blank">W.UNH.EDU</a>>"<br>> <<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LA">Mary.Wong@LA</a><br>> <a href="http://W.UNH.EDU" target="_blank">W.UNH.EDU</a>>>, Wendy Seltzer<br>> <<a href="mailto:wendy@seltzer.com">wendy@seltzer.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:wendy@seltzer.com">wendy@seltzer.com</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:wendy@seltzer.com">wendy@seltzer.com</a>>>,<br>> Rafik Dammak<br>> <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM">rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM">rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:rafik.damm">rafik.damm</a><br>> <a href="mailto:ak@GMAIL.COM">ak@GMAIL.COM</a>>><br>> Subject: RE: NCUC letter to the GAC, RE UDRP<br>><br>> I think the letter is too polite, too generic and too long. I think it<br>> should say, more simply, that the GAC does not seem to have consulted<br>> with stakeholders holding different viewpoints about the UDRP and so we<br>> are sending it our views.<br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:<a href="mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a>]<br>> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 7:15 AM<br>> To: <a href="mailto:EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org">EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org">EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:EC-">EC-</a><br>> <a href="mailto:NCUC@ipjustice.org">NCUC@ipjustice.org</a>><br>> Cc: Avri org>; Robin Gross; William Drake;<br>> <a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU">Mary.Wong@LAW.UNH.EDU</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@LAW">Mary.Wong@LAW</a><br>> .<a href="http://UNH.EDU" target="_blank">UNH.EDU</a>>; Wendy Seltzer; Milton L Mueller; Rafik Dammak<br>> Subject: NCUC letter to the GAC, RE UDRP Dear all, I've drafted a cover<br>> letter to send to the GAC in relation to the UDRP, attaching at the end<br>> NCUC's comments during the public period. Given the time pressure to<br>> send this out to the GAC before the Dakar meeting, I don't think there<br>> is time for the whole list to review it. I am asking therefore the NCUC<br>> EC to tell me whether they agree on sending this to the GAC. As you may<br>> know, the GAC sent a statement to the GNSO requesting that the UDRP<br>> should not be reviewed; this statement was drafted by the IPC so we need<br>> to respond.<br>> Please edit and/or make any additions that you feel are necessary. I<br>> would like to send this to Heather by the end of the week so they can<br>> read it before the GNSO meet with them in Dakar.<br>> Many thanks<br>> KK<br>> --<br>> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,<br>> Senior Lecturer in Law,<br>> Director of LLM in Information Technology and Telems. Law, Director of<br>> Postgraduate Instructional Courses, ICANN NCUC Chair University of<br>> Strathclyde, Graham Hills Bld.<br>> 50 George Street,<br>> Glasgow, G1 1BA,<br>> UK<br>> tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%29141%20548%204306">+44 (0)141 548 4306</a><br>> email:<br>> <a href="mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:k.komaiti">k.komaiti</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>> <a href="mailto:s@strath.ac.uk">s@strath.ac.uk</a>><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Ec-ncuc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ec-ncuc@ipjustice.org">Ec-ncuc@ipjustice.org</a><br><a href="http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc" target="_blank">http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>