IP Constituency Urges ICANN Board to Deny 6 Council Seats to NonCommercial Stakeholders Group

[Robin Gross]

Hi Bill,

I agree that we should submit a response to this that discusses in
detail the great wisdom of their SG proposal.  However, I'd prefer
that we not try to throw something together in 2 hours, but rather
take some time and come up with a solid document.  A response from
the non-commercial users to the IPC's charge against us must be
received by ICANN - even if it comes in 1 week after the public
comment period.

Best,
Robin


On Apr 15, 2009, at 2:16 PM, William Drake wrote:

> Robin,
>
> Nice that they waited until the last minute to submit this, without
> ever seeking a discussion with us in any setting.
>
> What's the precise cut off time for comments?  It's what, 2pm in
> California, so there is some time before COB.  If you have a little
> head space, why not write a short critique of the CSG Charter, such
> that it is?  It's after 11pm here and I can't type any more today,
> but I'd support whatever you come up with.  There's plenty to
> complain about starting with the first para, which claims the CSC
> represents "users;" the restrictive membership construction (e.g.
> how many individual entrepreneurs do they have, how representative,
> diverse, and "deserving" are they); and complete lack of clarity
> and development in their draft about essentially all institutional
> aspects (all those high-paid lawyers and this is the best they can
> do?), a point that should be hammered. Perhaps a new council
> shouldn't be seated until they clarify how they will select six
> reflecting the criteria we are alleged not to meet.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>> The IP Constituency submitted its comments today on the
>> stakeholder group petitions.
>>
>> See:
>>    http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/
>> pdfyb62GoZM3w.pdf
>>
>> It calls on the ICANN Board to deny the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>> Group its rightful 6 council seats, claiming we aren't
>> "representative" enough.  The IPC complains because our counselors
>> will remain seated after June (but doesn't mention that its own
>> counselors will also remain seated).  In fact, it didn't make any
>> comments on its own proposals - it is only a slam on all non-
>> commercial users proposals.
>>
>> Wow.  They really are desperate with this move.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
> ***********************************************************
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090415/eeb75537/attachment.html>