<html>
<head>
</head>
<body style="margin-right: 4px; margin-bottom: 1px; font-family: Lucida Grande; margin-left: 4px; font-weight: normal; font-variant: normal; margin-top: 4px; line-height: normal; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal">
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font size="3" face="Lucida Grande">It seems to me that there may be a good topic for the SG to raise with the Board here during the Board-NCSG meeting in Beijing. Several recent developments such as: (1) the Board's unilateral contract amendment power for both Registry and Registrar Accreditation Agreements; (2) the sudden introduction of the PIC Specification (presumably related to GAC pressure); (3) the imposition of a to-be-determined new WHOIS policy; and, now, (4) the adoption of much of the TM "strawman" proposal - all call into question the relevance and sanctity of the GNSO's policy development processes.</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font size="3" face="Lucida Grande">This relates also to the whole "policy vs implementation" discussion that's ongoing.</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font size="3" face="Lucida Grande">Two ideas for the group to consider, therefore:</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font size="3" face="Lucida Grande">(1) [To our Councilors] Will the GNSO Council stand aside and allow these process runarounds to occur?</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font size="3" face="Lucida Grande">(2) [To our SG officers and all members] How about asking the Board to explain how it is that these recent unilateral changes were introduced despite opposition by some in the community and no formal GNSO consensus view taken?</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font size="3" face="Lucida Grande">I'd add, though, that - per Ed's point - the SG does need to take a much more pro-active approach. While we have done better recently with responding to public comment requests and statements, and have some improved relationships with other groups in the community, we have not leveraged or developed the kind of influential relationships that are needed to be treated as other than with tolerant condescension. In addition, because we're all volunteers, we often cannot follow through with some excellent suggestions for action that are made on this list. That's too bad.</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font size="3" face="Lucida Grande">Cheers</font> </p>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font size="3" face="Lucida Grande">Mary</font><br><br><font face="Lucida Grande" STYLE="font-size: 12pt"><br>Mary W S Wong
<BR>Professor of Law
<BR>Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
<BR>Chair, Graduate IP Programs
<BR>UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
<BR>Two White Street
<BR>Concord, NH 03301
<BR>USA
<BR>Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu
<BR>Phone: 1-603-513-5143
<BR>Webpage: <a href="http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
">http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
</a><BR><br><br></font>>>> </p>
<table style="margin-right: 0; margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 15px; margin-top: 0; font-size: 1em" border="0" bgcolor="#f3f3f3">
<tr>
<td>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px #050505; padding-left: 7px">
<table style="font-family: Lucida Grande; font-weight: normal; font-variant: normal; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; font-style: normal" bgcolor="#f3f3f3">
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<b>From: </b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Avri Doria <avri@ACM.ORG> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<b>To:</b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<b>Date: </b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
3/22/2013 9:13 AM </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<b>Subject: </b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Re: [NCSG-Discuss] ICANN is bottom-up, except for when it is top-down. Fwd: Memorandum on the Trademark Clearinghouse ³Strawman Solution² </p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Hi<br><br><br>If all of the Sr. Staff's current gambit succeeds (e.g. perversion of TMCH, the unilateral RA & RAA etc) it will become easy to argue that ICANN Sr. Staff has captured ICANN and that the vaunted ICANN Multistakeholder Model is just a fig leaf.<br><br>I wonder will the Board allow this? <br>Or is this perhaps the Board's doing?<br>Do we have the transparency in this organization to know whether the Staff is leading or the Board is leading?<br>I don't think so (I know that understanding is part of what ATRT2 is supposed to achieve.)<br><br>If indeed the Staff is leading, as appears to be the case, it is hard to understand how the current leadership would be allowed to keep its job. The speed with which the policy development process has been replaced by a command and control process is startling. If ICANN is going to be saved, quick action is probably necessary.<br><br>As for Rod, it is true there was a lot to complain about and I complained as much as anyone. But the fundamental was that he actually seemed to at least theoretically support the Multistakeholder Model. Our new great leader seems determined to destroy it. Might be time to try again.<br><br>avri<br><br><br><br><br>On 22 Mar 2013, at 08:11, Horacio T. Cadiz wrote:<br><br>> On 03/22/2013 07:51 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:<br>><br>>> Agreed! We need to play in external forums, either as complainants or<br>>> supporters. I've thought we could do more by showing that we're useful<br>>> supporters of the ICANN model (as distinct from supporting everything<br>>> ICANN-the-org does) in other forums where it's challenged. We stand<br>>> firmly behind multi-stakeholder bottom-up governance, and in that vein,<br>>> demand that *all* the stakeholders have voice in the consensus policy<br>>> decisions.<br>><br>> In the board, there is only one rep from the staff. The structure<br>> doesn't really represent the power the staff wields. If they wanted<br>> to backdoor these proposals, they should have at least created<br>> the Staff Support Organization (SSO).<br>><br>> So how do we go about doing changing this?<br>><br>
</p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>