Update on IOC/RC issue: motion proposed by NCSG for PDP

[Nuno Garcia]

I personally have no expectation on this: as Klaus says, the gates are
already open.

Why the UN and 10 more. Why not 100 more? or 1024 more?

The process is contaminated, and this is exactly what any wise person would
avoid.

BR
NG

On 7 April 2012 17:36, klaus.stoll <klaus.stoll at chasquinet.org> wrote:

>   Dear Friends
>
> Greetings. I think we need to limit the possibility to an absolute
> minimum, (UN + 10 max), IF ANY !, everything else will as Avri says open up
> the flood gates and make the whole gTLD system unmanageable because there
> will we hundreds if not thousands of exceptions and an equal number of
> legal actions for those who think they deserve them.
>
> Yours
>
> Klaus
>
>  *From:* Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 07, 2012 5:51 PM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: Update on IOC/RC issue: motion proposed by NCSG for PDP
>
> Thanks.  I thought we were going to add "IF ANY" to the clause asking
> about what other orgs deserve such rights?  I worry that we are inviting a
> flood gate of requests for privileges by assuming there will be others
> (rather than ask the question IF there should be others first).
>
> Robin
>
>
>  On Apr 6, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
>
>  Hello everyone,
>
> The NCSG Policy Committee agreed that, in view of the passage of the
> motion which adopted the IOC-RC Drafting Team's recommendations for
> first-round protections for the IOC and RC, the GNSO should consider
> additional protections - including any that might apply to other
> international governmental organizations (IGOs) who have requested similar
> protections - through a full Policy Development Process (PDP) rather than
> through an ad-hoc drafting team.
>
> Accordingly, we proposed a motion that will be discussed at the upcoming
> GNSO Council meeting next week on Thursday 12 April. Coincidentally, a
> similar (but not identical) motion was also proposed by Thomas Rickert, the
> Nominating Committee appointee to the Contracted Parties' House. Both
> motions can be viewed at
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+12+April+2012
> .
>
> Between now and the Council meeting, we'll be discussing with Thomas ways
> to combine both motions so that the Council need only vote on one unified
> motion. Early indications are that the concept is acceptable to some of the
> other Council members, so I'm hopeful that if we can successfully fuse both
> motions, there is a fair chance of its passage.
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
>
> *Mary W S Wong*
> *Professor of Law*
> *Chair, Graduate IP Programs*
> *Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP*
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH
> 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage:
> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on
> the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120407/4cabba56/attachment-0001.html>