GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now

[Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU]

Thanks, Avri - I think we will all be looking forward to the eyewitness
account, especially as going through the transcript is pretty painful
and takes a looooong time :(
 
My impression of the initial Rec 6 discussion was that (according to
Suzanne Sene) the GAC is requesting that it be exempt from the Limited
Public Interest Objection Procedure. I'd be curious to know how that
would work and what the consequent discussions were like.
 
Cheers, and thanks again to you, Bill, Rudi and whoever else could make
it to Brussels,
Mary

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: Avri Doria <avri at LTU.SE>
To:<NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
Date: 3/2/2011 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now
hi,

i know you guys did not send me, but i will work up an impressions
report in the next day or so for blog and for those who did send me.

It went until this morning, and to be honest, I am still working on
understanding.

quick impressions:

board asserted itself
gac asserted itself.
for the most part it was good natured.
though GAC did start by threatening and every once in a while, when
they felt it slipping, threatened again.
and the Board pretty much contained their frustration.  most of the
time.

they, as groups, obviously don't have the hang of multistakeholder
discussion yet, but were working on it, and some of them do have
experience.

but  i think GAC will accept even losing some of their points if they
really feel that due diligence has been done and there was a real
consideration of their points.  not all of them of course. there will be
be spoiled sports or both siders.

and some of the points are more qualifications and areas where they do
not understand how the mechanisms are supposed to work.  or maybe they
don't believe the mechanism don't work.

i am hoping the Board will have a coherent response to the scorecard in
the next few days.  i am not going to cull it from the transcript but
this morning and yesterday afternoon was the scorecard response.


a.


On 2 Mar 2011, at 20:40, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Joly:
> I didn't ask for a transcript. 
> I asked that our representative in Brussels - the one I believe we
agreed to support to get there - actually provide us with a report.
Bill?
> --MM
> ________________________________________
> From: joly.nyc at gmail.com [joly.nyc at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joly
MacFie [joly at punkcast.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:52 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> Subject: Re: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now
> 
> scribe notes:
> 
>
http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-1.txt
>
http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-2.txt
>
http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-3.txt
>
http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-4.txt
>
http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-5.txt
>
http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-6.txt
> 
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
wrote:
>> Would appreciate a report on your impressions. I had time to listen
in for
>> about 45 minutes this morning, mostly about geographic names. My
impression
>> was that the whole discussion was very inconclusive and consisted
of
>> relatively clueless GAC members, e.g. from Germany and UK,
reiterating
>> debates over geographic names that we have been having for years,
not
>> contributing anything new in terms of information or policy and
really not
>> pressing ICANN to make specific changes. GAC members themselves did
not seem
>> of one mind about the issue, although sharing certain “concerns.”
But that
>> was a very small sample of the total interaction, so want to know
what you
>> saw/heard/thought.
>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110302/29644eff/attachment-0001.html>