Questions for The Board-NCSG meeting

[Kim G. von Arx]

I think the TM question proposed by Wendy is not partisan with respect to any stance on TM, but simply raises the fact that there ARE non-TM holders and the board should recognize such.  Indeed, the board should recognize that the non-TM rights holders are a larger group, but less politically and financially powerful and as such great care should be taken by the board to accommodate and incorporate those views and to not get swayed by shiny, big, and loud things.  Indeed, the one's who shout the loudest are rarely ever the "right-est". 

Kim 

__________________________________

kim at vonarx.ca
+1 (613) 286-4445

"Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..."







On 8 Jun 2011, at 16:57, Amber Sterling wrote:

> As this is a Board-NCSG meeting I think it is important to note that with respect to trademarks NCSG members have diverse (and divergent) views on the matter.  An NCSG discussion about trademarks with the board may not be the most efficient use of the time as we, members of the NCSG, do not have a singular agenda to push.
> 
> For example, the 3rd question posed regarding the status of the NCSG charter and constituency formation is a topic that pertains to all as we would love for the charter issues to be concluded.
> 
> Amber Sterling
> Senior Intellectual Property Specialist
> Association of American Medical Colleges
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 4:48 PM
> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: Questions for The Board-NCSG meeting
> 
> My suggestions:
> 
> Does the Board recognize that there's a large diffuse group of
> non-trademark-holders and language-users who are fed up with the way TM
> interests keep redrawing previously concluded issues?  How is the Board
> working to finalize decisions and stick to them?
> 
> When will the Board share staff papers with the community *while they
> are relevant* to Board decisions, and can be fact-checked, rather than
> months after?
> 
> What's the status of DNS-CERT? Has ICANN realized it's a bad idea to try
> to control that?
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> 
> 
> On 06/06/2011 10:07 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> As was pointed out in the email sent regarding the Board-NCSG meeting in Singapore, and as mention on today's call, we need to propose 3 questions to the Board.  The Board will also propose 3 questions to us.
>> 
>> I will give people another day or so to suggest topics. 
>> 
>> On Wednesday evening, I will put together a doodle pool of the choices and over the course of Thursday, NCSG members will be invited to pick their top choices.
>> 
>> On Friday, I will write up the 3 top topics, send it to this list for 24 hour review and then send it to the Board for their consideration over the weekend.
>> 
>> To start the list we have the 3 topics we picked last time when the meeting was cancelled and two suggestions provided by Konstantinos:
>> 
>> 
>> 1. We would like to better understand how the Board weighs GAC advice in relation to  GNSO recommendations, the CWG work and community comment on the implementation in the by-laws mandated process.  Of special interest are issues related to MAPO/Rec6 and Community Objections.
>> 
>> 2.  We would be very interested to hear how the the Board reads both the substance and process of Cross-Community WGs and the JAS group in particular to understand what the Board is  thinking viable supports might be and how they regard the recommendations for fee reductions.
>> 
>> 3. While understanding that the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter is waiting on the approval of the standardized New  Constituency process recommended by the Structural Improvements Committee, we would like to understand what issues, if any, may be blocking Board approval of both the New Constituency Process and the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter.
>> 
>> 4. The role of the GAC within ICANN and how this might affect its stakeholder groups.
>>    (this may entail a re-write of #1)
>> 
>> 5.   Trademark issues. 
>>    (might be good to have more detail on this question)
>> 
>> Please send you suggestions for inclusion in the doodle poll.  Updates on the questions from last time also requested.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613
> Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110608/b9852d51/attachment-0001.html>