<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19170"></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV>I think a bloc vote against by NCSG would be counter-productive (unless, of course, all Councilors believe a No vote is justified). We had volunteers on the WG, even though that was a largely thankless and possibly fruitless task, and the fundamental problems - that the GNSO is perceived to be a unilateral entity which views itself above and apart from the other SOs, and that consequently it believes it can dictate practice to the others - won't be solved by a No vote. We also approved the formation of the WG in the first place, so trying to get some positive results out of the process at a time when volunteer time and energy is scarce is IMHO something worth trying for.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'd be inclined to try to get an amendment through that addresses the concerns raised about the GNSO lording it over the other SOs - since we are asking to defer the motion that will give us a bit of time to think about appropriate wording. If our proposed amendment then fails, we would be legitimately positioned to do the principled abstention mentioned by Joy.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>BTW, Nicolas - your contributions are very useful, so thank you for trusting us Councilors to convey your and others' views appropriately, including, where necessary, punting, compromising and strategizing!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cheers</DIV>
<DIV>Mary</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#800080>Mary W S Wong</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Professor of Law</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Chair, Graduate IP Programs</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP</EM></DIV>
<ADDRESS>UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Two White Street</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Concord, NH 03301</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>USA</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Email: <A href="mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu">mary.wong@law.unh.edu</A></ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Phone: 1-603-513-5143</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Webpage: <A href="http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php">http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php</A></ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: <A href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</A></ADDRESS>>>> </DIV>
<TABLE style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 15px; FONT-SIZE: 1em" border=0 bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV style="BORDER-LEFT: #050505 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 7px">
<TABLE style="FONT: 8pt Tahoma" bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>From: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>Joy Liddicoat <joy@APC.ORG></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>To:</STRONG></TD>
<TD><NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Date: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>1/18/2012 7:33 PM</TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Subject: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>My take on the discussion so far is that there is no consensus (rough or<BR>otherwise) in favour of these motions, but there is a desire for the GNSO to<BR>be talking with other constituencies about cross constituency working group<BR>principles.<BR>On that basis the option is to either vote against or a *principled*<BR>abstention (ie on the basis of lack of cross constituency co-operation in<BR>the development of these).<BR>Views?<BR>Joy<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of<BR>Nicolas Adam<BR>Sent: Thursday, 19 January 2012 8:21 a.m.<BR>To: NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR>Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working<BR>Groups<BR><BR>Having principles should in no way prevent from being strategical. <BR>Thought I'd voice this since i have been sounding off a lot on principles.<BR><BR>I don't believe in karma, but i hate inesthetical things with a passion. <BR>Fortunately, I find good strategy to be of the highest aesthetical order.<BR>While I think principles are important, weaving them unstrategically is<BR>aesthetically reprehensible to me.<BR><BR>So on the 3 options, I don't know which i would push. Note that I sometimes<BR>expect the people that are able to do politics and compromise to use my<BR>principled opposition as best they see. This is why i voted for them. I try<BR>to give munition as well as myopinion but I am happy to defer to our elected<BR>representatives who are in positions to see more globally (and<BR>strategically) than I can with my limited experience .... .<BR><BR>Nicolas<BR><BR>#########<BR><BR>Bill, a few questions (for when you have time, of course, and with thx in<BR>advance):<BR><BR>why wouldn't an amendment pass? and what was the outreach vote that had the<BR>GNSO divided?<BR><BR>Can someone comment on the economy/culture of vote trading/politics between<BR>both GNSO's SGs? is there for instance a recent paper recounting recent<BR>negotiations or some such?<BR><BR><BR>On 18/01/2012 8:04 AM, William Drake wrote:<BR><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">>></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"> ></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"> I believe that anyone who does vote for it, should be ready to support</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR>its principles in any negotiation or risk the same approbation you are<BR>concerned about now. To hope that it will be ok, because ALAC will object<BR>may not be the most advisable course. Then again, US politics has taught me<BR>that there does not need to be a necessary connection between how one votes,<BR>what one says and what one does, so in the long run, perhaps it is only<BR>karma and doing what you think is right that matters.<BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> US politics is a rich vein to mine for depressing lessons, but I'm not</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR>sure I'd like to embrace that one. I do suspect though that any SO/AC, not<BR>just ALAC, that enters into discussion with GNSO will only accept rules of<BR>engagement they find amenable, so even if GNSO sez it wants x that's not the<BR>end of the matter.<BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">> We could defer, amend, both. Any thoughts on my suggestion in that</SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><BR>regard?<BR></SPAN></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></BODY></HTML>