Fwd: [soac-discussion] FW: ICANN 43 Public Forum Agenda Building

[Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU]

Relatedly but more broadly, how best to ensure that bottom-up policy
development processes are not damaged or threatened by
alternate/parallel developments (recent examples: handling of the LEA
requests by/through the GAC; the resurrection of trademark protection
issues in new gTLDs)? 


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
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 
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with
the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of
New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have
changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law,
please visit law.unh.edu 


>>> 


From:  
David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> 

To: 
<NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu> 

Date:  
2/28/2012 4:36 AM 

Subject:  
Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [soac-discussion] FW: ICANN 43 Public Forum
Agenda Building 

On 28/02/2012, at 4:37 PM, William Drake wrote

> We had a discussion the other day about how fruitless discussions of
"big picture" geopolitical items have been in the Board-NCSG meetings. 
Accordingly, my suggestion would be to try posing those questions in the
public forum instead.  It might be that in front of a full room from
diverse SO/ACs they will find it less easy to wave such matters away,
and it may also be that some such questions would resonate with others
in the community who'd pick up the points and make not a "only NCSG
wants to know" thing.  We could then concentrate questions for the
Board-NCSG on the purely internal issues they'll tell us are being dealt
with elsewhere and they're just there to listen to our views—reserved
names, management of the applicant support process, LEA, etc…

I would have thought LEAs counted as a big picture item, but discussion
of how LEAs will fit into the ICANN process is something I'd like to
see.
No one really wants to have the LEAs making demands, but the current
situation where LEAs just kind of hang around and then get the GAC to
bully other stakeholders on their behalf doesn't sound great either.
Cheers
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120228/51f9f7ff/attachment-0001.html>