Urgent: Nominations for IRT Participants

[Mary Wong]

Hi everyone,

I've already emailed Kristina and Steve Metalitz to find out more about
the resource commitment they're expecting from the IRT. I'm afraid that
I also volunteered to be on the IRT (subject to the commitment
question). I don't as yet know whether I'll get on it - I will let
everyone know as soon as I hear.

If I get on it, but the general feeling amongst NCUC members is that
it's better to sit this one out and then examine the IRT's proposals
when they are released, I can always recuse myself from the IRT.

If, however, as per Adam's and Bill's emails, the consensus is that
it's better to have NCUC representatives on the IRT, then I suggest that
Konstantinos send in his details to Kristina before tomorrow.

Let me know what you think,
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK> 3/12/2009 10:01 AM
>>>
Complexity is still ICANN’s trademark. I agree with Milton if that is
the case the only thing we can do really is sit back and wait. I am
happy to proceed either way and give my input on behalf of our group at
any time.

Thank you both Milton and Bill.

Konstantinos


On 12/03/2009 11:56, "William Drake"
<william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH> wrote:


On Mar 12, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Just had a private email with a Board member
Apparently the approach of this WG is to put all the complainers (i.e.
the trademark/IP people) into a position where they have to come up with
a solution that is both acceptable to them and to the rest of the
community. In other words it is not intended to be an open WG but is
deliberately intended to be slanted toward them with (they hope) the
salutary effect of forcing them to be constructive and commit themselves
to accepting whatever they propose.
Thus, while I agree that Konstantinos has expertise in this area and
that we should leverage it, I think the best way is NOT to put him on
the group (may not be able to get onto it anyway) but to assign him to
be our special monitor of the results of that group. He can assess the
results and tell us whether to scream against it or to accept it. And
draft our response. And if it is really bad, help us convince other
stakeholder groups to oppose it as well.

Hi Milton,

It may be that different board members have different perceptions and
agendas (surprise).  See the snippets below; if what's really intended
is that the IPC go off and do something themselves and other
constituencies are merely consulted and respond, it would have been good
to say that more clearly up front, and to frame the call for nominations
differently.

Maybe I'll hear something clarifying from Kristina in response to my
suggesting more time for nominations.  If the real deal is as you say,
then I guess standing back might be the right move.

Nothing like wasting cycles figuring out the fit between words and
their actual meanings...

BD


 Transcript
<http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/transcript-board-meeting-06mar09-en.txt>

 >>WENDY SELTZER:   So I don't see this resolution as an endorsement of
any particular position, but as an opportunity for the community to
fully develop its positions so that they are bringing to us fully formed
proposals which we can then act upon.  And so I invite -- and I hope
that members of the community will be -- of other communities will be
consulted early in the process, as is recommended, and will have full
opportunities to analyze proposals that come out of this working group
to provide us with their views as well.

 >>DENNIS JENNINGS:   Thank you, Peter.  I'm particularly pleased to
see the use of the phrase "internationally diverse group of persons" in
the resolution. Because my impression has been that much of the
discussion has been driven by big business and west -- or North American
intellectual property interests.  And I think we've heard other
interests speak during the week.  And I'm very pleased to see that
because I think there are other dimensions that need to be taken into
account.

 >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON:   Thank you.  I guess I just want to say --
echo what my colleagues have said, which is I think we're very pleased
that there seems to be broad support for this proposal and that members
of the community have come together to try to determine solutions to
these issues.  I just want to emphasize to everyone the board's view
here, which is this is not being put together -- and we are hopeful that
this is not going to be a situation where there's going to be
overreaching or there's going to be a stagnation of the process or that
this is just going to be about big business here.  We really, really
want this to be solutions, to be consultative with various
constituencies, and to give us real and collaborative and practical ways
to move forward. And we're all, actually, very hopeful that this is
going to be the case and very much trust in this process.


--
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Lecturer in Law,
GigaNet Membership Chair,
University of Strathclyde,
The Lord Hope Building,
141 St. James Road,
Glasgow, G4 0LT,
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090312/ae7b839d/attachment.html>