[Fwd: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP]

[KathrynKL at AOL.COM]

Robin,
Thanks for the detailed background.  It is great for the constituency  and
for the noncommercial community that you have such a good handle on what is
happening and what needs to be done.

One thing you wrote below particularly resonates.  Why bother to pass  a
treaty when you can get ICANN to make global (and let me add biased,  one-sided,
and pro-IP) policy?  That's exactly where the UDRP comes from,  and other ICANN
initiatives.  Would that ICANN could stay solely in the  business of the
technical and away from freedom of expression/intellectual  property matters, but
it won't.

Thanks again for leading our response to this IPC proposal.  I know
understand why you take it so seriously.
Best,
Kathy

Robin wrote:


One  thing is clear: ICANN is the ideal forum for these causes that can't
win  approval in a legitimate international treaty context.   Why bother
with the difficulties of passing a treaty when one can easily get ICANN
to make global policy?







**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20071203/9841f3bc/attachment.html>