IOC/RC

[Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU]

I agree. The SCI is the proper place to review the process issue, both as to how to handle the resubmission of a previously-defeated motion (on whatever basis) as well as the question of whether current GNSO rules and procedures properly govern the conflict of interest (CoI) problem.

What the SCI *CANNOT* do is change the substance of a GNSO Council decision and vote. Thus, even if the SCI considers the action taken by the Council illegitimate, the SCI cannot undo the vote. What happens then?

It seems to me that by NOT waiting on the SCI's recommendation, the Council has set up a potential situation of delicacy for both the SCI and itself, and should the SCI determine that proper process was not followed, a further problem as to explaining the mess to the Board, the GAC and the community.

I'd support an NCSG statement.

Cheers
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
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  

>>> Avri Doria  12/20/12 6:46 PM >>>
Seems an idea worth considering.

avri

On 20 Dec 2012, at 17:31, Robin Gross wrote:

> Perhaps NCSG should make an official public statement to express our concern regarding the mis-handling of this issue by the GNSO Council (and possibly staff due to their shepherding of the motion through regardless of proper process)?  I think we need to draw attention to these problems where councilors are creating such privileges for their own clients with their council votes and also resubmitting a rejected motion without dealing with the conflict of interest causing the problem in the first place.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> On 20 Dec 2012, at 14:22, joy wrote:
>> 
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> 
>>> Thanks all for the comments. The matter was referred to the SCI today,
>>> following the Council meeting.
>>> Joy
>> 
>> 
>> It may have been referred to the SCI,
>> but that is a case too late.
>> 
>> the motion that both staff and the chair wanted passed was rammed through.
>> in my opinion this was illegitimate.
>> and should have waited on the recommendation of the SCI.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121220/a5539043/attachment-0001.html>