<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3603" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=931270217-03112009>Mary:</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=931270217-03112009>WIPO's recent move to
create a "fast track UDRP" in which they show they are competing with a
prospective URS in terms of shortcutting respondent's rights provides an opening
to do this </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=931270217-03112009></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=931270217-03112009>I see that Konstantinos is all over it:
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=931270217-03112009><A
href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20091102_wipo_fast_track_udrp_process_flawed/">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20091102_wipo_fast_track_udrp_process_flawed/</A></SPAN></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><SPAN class=931270217-03112009>For our trademark experts, I have a question:
which is worse, the proposed URS or the fast track UDRP? Can the latter be used
to get rid of the former? </SPAN></P>
<P>Milton Mueller<BR>Professor, Syracuse University School of Information
Studies<BR>XS4All Professor, Delft University of
Technology<BR>------------------------------<BR>Internet Governance
Project:<BR><A
href="http://internetgovernance.org/">http://internetgovernance.org</A><BR></P>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<B>From:</B> Non-Commercial User Constituency
[mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Mary
Wong<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:13 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Human
rights impact assessment<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>The other issue to think about, as regards bringing it up for at least a
spot on the Council's priority work list for the following year, is a
possible revision of the UDRP. Our community thus needs to decide whether
to bring up both issues, or just one, or perhaps more than two (if there are
other issues members feel strongly that the Council should take up over the
next year).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Our STI team (Wendy, Robin, Kathy & Konstantinos) can let us know
whether a UDRP revision is something they'd like for NCSG Councillors to
bring up, probably after the November 6 deadline for SG submissions regarding
the Board letter to the GNSO on trademark protections in new gTLDs.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cheers</DIV>
<DIV>Mary</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#800080>Mary W S Wong</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs</DIV>
<DIV>Franklin Pierce Law Center</DIV>
<DIV>Two White Street</DIV>
<DIV>Concord, NH 03301</DIV>
<DIV>USA</DIV>
<DIV>Email: <A href="mailto:mwong@piercelaw.edu">mwong@piercelaw.edu</A></DIV>
<DIV>Phone: 1-603-513-5143</DIV>
<DIV>Webpage: <A
href="http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php">http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php</A></DIV>
<DIV>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: <A
href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</A></DIV><BR><BR>>>>
Avri Doria <avri@LTU.SE> 11/3/2009 9:46 AM >>><BR>Hi,<BR><BR>If
this is something we want on the priority list, should it not be
<BR>brought up at the time the priority list is being made? even if
at <BR>the moment it is forced to the bottom of the list by the
others <BR>because they do not wish to support human rights, it gets on
the list <BR>as something that needs attention some time in the
future.<BR><BR>If it doesn't get brought up now, it gets lost because then
they can <BR>ask, with justification, why it was not brought up
during the <BR>priority setting exercise - and ends up dead for a least
a year.<BR><BR>But yes, forming a team to flush it out is a good
idea.<BR><BR>a.<BR><BR>On 3 Nov 2009, at 01:48, William Drake
wrote:<BR><BR>> Hi,<BR>><BR>> Like Mary, I like the concept in
principle but have questions about <BR>> its near-term feasibility in
practice. For example, the council's <BR>> agenda is packed;
the process of digesting and adjusting to <BR>> restructuring is
really just getting underway; NCUC participation in <BR>> the
existing work program (working groups, drafting teams etc) is <BR>>
low and uneven, which affects the optics; and the one item we <BR>>
pressed onto the agenda in recent months---the issue report on <BR>>
vertical integration---already encountered resistance in part on
<BR>> capacity grounds, and has been delayed because the staff is
maxed <BR>> out. So if we go into the council and propose a new
work item that <BR>> isn't precisely specified and doesn't point to
clear and tractable <BR>> action lines, I imagine it would be a tough
sell, and it's not <BR>> obvious which if any of the other
stakeholder groups would support <BR>> the initiative. (There
is also some question about how this would <BR>> play given the
perception/allegation in some circles that NCUC is <BR>> sort of a
single-issue freedom of expression group that doesn't <BR>> engage
sufficiently on other issues like consumer protection etc.)<BR>><BR>> My
suggestion is that people who are particularly interested in the
<BR>> concept form a team to flesh it out, e.g. by clearly specifying
the <BR>> problems that need to be addressed and the means by which
this could <BR>> be done, and work up a proposal. We could then
have some dialogue <BR>> to fine tune and then take a hard look at
the council's calendar and <BR>> think about the best time and way to
introduce it and who we might <BR>> be able to get to support
it.<BR>><BR>> Best,<BR>><BR>> Bill<BR>><BR>><BR>> On Nov
2, 2009, at 11:04 PM, Mary Wong wrote:<BR>><BR>>> Rebecca and
everyone, doing a human rights impact assessment is an <BR>>>
excellent suggestion that should definitely be included in the
<BR>>> public comments to the current DAG. Perhaps the NCSG (or NCUC)
can <BR>>> also include in its public comments a statement of
support for the <BR>>> idea?<BR>>><BR>>> As to
bringing it up to and within the GNSO Council process, I'd be
<BR>>> glad to except that I am not sure at this time when and how
would <BR>>> be the best method. It's not just that the Council
has tons on its <BR>>> plate at the moment (as many of you know),
which would likely mean <BR>>> little enthusiasm for taking on
something new that probably is not <BR>>> a priority item for some
of the other Councillors and SGs; it's <BR>>> also the question of
what "action item" we (NCSG/NCUC) would be <BR>>> requesting of
the Council.<BR>>><BR>>> Would NCSG/NCUC be requesting a statement
of support from the <BR>>> Council or a policy action? Or
something else? Each possibility <BR>>> requires a different
process (and possibly a different strategy).<BR>>><BR>>> [NOTE: A
policy development process (PDP) may be initiated by the <BR>>>
Board, an Advisory Committee (AC) or the Council. It first requires
<BR>>> an Issues Report be prepared by ICANN Staff that will include
a <BR>>> recommendation as to whether the issue is properly within
the scope <BR>>> of the GNSO Council's mandate. The Council then
votes on whether to <BR>>> initiate the PDP (unless it is a
Board-initiated request). NCUC <BR>>> has, in fact, recently
requested an Issues Report on Registrar/ <BR>>> Registry integration,
which should be finished and sent to the <BR>>> Council later this
month.]<BR>>><BR>>> Perhaps the NCUC and/or the newly-established
NCSG Executive <BR>>> Committees can discuss what their preferred
option would be, in <BR>>> addition to making the suggestion in
public comments to DAG-3? For <BR>>> example, would ALAC be
interested in making a joint request?<BR>>><BR>>> (I'm not trying
to be negative - far from it - but am hoping to <BR>>> focus our
discussions and actions to have the maximum impact <BR>>> possible
within ICANN's arcane processes and organizations.)<BR>>><BR>>>
Cheers<BR>>> Mary<BR>>><BR>>> Mary W S Wong<BR>>>
Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs<BR>>> Franklin Pierce Law
Center<BR>>> Two White Street<BR>>> Concord, NH 03301<BR>>>
USA<BR>>> Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu<BR>>> Phone:
1-603-513-5143<BR>>> Webpage: <A
href="http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php">http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php</A><BR>>>
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
<BR>>> (SSRN) at: <A
href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</A><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
>>> Rebecca MacKinnon <rebecca.mackinnon@GMAIL.COM> 11/1/2009
9:19 <BR>>> AM >>><BR>>> Andrew, yes, Google is a
founding member of the Global Network <BR>>> Initiative and is
working with GNI to develop a human rights <BR>>> assessment
process for Internet companies and hopefully the ICT <BR>>> sector
more broadly. Perhaps ICANN staff might be more willing to <BR>>>
listen to GNI members Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft than to non- <BR>>>
commercial users.<BR>>><BR>>> Milton, glad you like the idea. If
our GNSO councilors are <BR>>> interested in bringing this up
through the GNSO, or if anybody <BR>>> participating in the
various working groups wants to use the GNI <BR>>> principles on
privacy and free expression as a benchmark for <BR>>> whether
basic standards are being met on that front please let me <BR>>>
know what other contacts/info you need.<BR>>><BR>>> Meanwhile I
will plan to submit something with this suggestion in <BR>>> the
DAG public comments as well.<BR>>><BR>>> Cheers,<BR>>>
Rebecca<BR>>><BR>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Andrew A.
Adams <a.a.adams@reading.ac.uk <BR>>> > wrote:<BR>>> milton
Mueller wrote:<BR>>> > This is a fantastic idea, Rebecca.<BR>>>
> As you may know, some of us have been trying to get free
<BR>>> expression concerns<BR>>> > as an officially recognized
part of ICANN's agenda for some time <BR>>> (back to<BR>>>
> the beginning, in fact).<BR>>> > We learned during the new gTLD
policy making process (e.g., the <BR>>> "morality<BR>>> >
and public order" section) how difficult that will be and we have
<BR>>> learned<BR>>> > that the U.S. government is completely
indifferent, at least the <BR>>> Commerce<BR>>> >
Department that controls relations with ICANN.<BR>>><BR>>> I
recently attended a talk by David Drummond, Chief Legal Officer
<BR>>> and Senior<BR>>> VP at Google, on Technology and Freedom of
Speech. He (and by <BR>>> extension,<BR>>> Google, since he
was speaking officially for the company) have a <BR>>> policy
of<BR>>> promoting freedom of speech quite broadly. They might be a
useful <BR>>> ally in<BR>>> such an
effort.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> -- <BR>>>
IMPORTANT: My Hong Kong University e-mail (rmack@hku.hk) will stop
<BR>>> working in January. Please use my gmail instead (see
below).<BR>>><BR>>> Rebecca MacKinnon<BR>>> Open Society
Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org<BR>>> Assistant Professor,
Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University <BR>>> of Hong
Kong<BR>>><BR>>> UK: +44-7759-863406<BR>>> USA:
+1-617-939-3493<BR>>> HK: +852-6334-8843<BR>>> Mainland China:
+86-13710820364<BR>>><BR>>> E-mail:
rebecca.mackinnon@gmail.com<BR>>> Blog: <A
href="http://RConversation.blogs.com">http://RConversation.blogs.com</A><BR>>>
Twitter: <A
href="http://twitter.com/rmack">http://twitter.com/rmack</A><BR>>>
Friendfeed: <A
href="http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack">http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack</A><BR>>><BR>><BR>>
***********************************************************<BR>> William J.
Drake<BR>> Senior Associate<BR>> Centre for International
Governance<BR>> Graduate Institute of International and<BR>>
Development Studies<BR>> Geneva, Switzerland<BR>>
william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<BR>>
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<BR>>
***********************************************************<BR>><BR>><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>