Urgent: Nominations for IRT Participants

[William Drake]

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090312/db92f432/attachment.html>