[At-Large] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups

[Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU]

I think a bloc vote against by NCSG would be counter-productive (unless, of course, all Councilors believe a No vote is justified). We had volunteers on the WG, even though that was a largely thankless and possibly fruitless task, and the fundamental problems - that the GNSO is perceived to be a unilateral entity which views itself above and apart from the other SOs, and that consequently it believes it can dictate practice to the others - won't be solved by a No vote. We also approved the formation of the WG in the first place, so trying to get some positive results out of the process at a time when volunteer time and energy is scarce is IMHO something worth trying for.
 
I'd be inclined to try to get an amendment through that addresses the concerns raised about the GNSO lording it over the other SOs - since we are asking to defer the motion that will give us a bit of time to think about appropriate wording. If our proposed amendment then fails, we would be legitimately positioned to do the principled abstention mentioned by Joy.
 
BTW, Nicolas - your contributions are very useful, so thank you for trusting us Councilors to convey your and others' views appropriately, including, where necessary, punting, compromising and strategizing!
 
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 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: Joy Liddicoat <joy at APC.ORG>
To:<NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
Date: 1/18/2012 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups
My take on the discussion so far is that there is no consensus (rough or
otherwise) in favour of these motions, but there is a desire for the GNSO to
be talking with other constituencies about cross constituency working group
principles.
On that basis the option is to either vote against or a *principled*
abstention (ie on the basis of lack of cross constituency co-operation in
the development of these).
Views?
Joy

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
Nicolas Adam
Sent: Thursday, 19 January 2012 8:21 a.m.
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working
Groups

Having principles should in no way prevent from being strategical. 
Thought I'd voice this since i have been sounding off a lot on principles.

I don't believe in karma, but i hate inesthetical things with a passion. 
Fortunately, I find good strategy to be of the highest aesthetical order.
While I think principles are important, weaving them unstrategically is
aesthetically reprehensible to me.

So on the 3 options, I don't know which i would push. Note that I sometimes
expect the people that are able to do politics and compromise to use my
principled opposition as best they see. This is why i voted for them. I try
to give munition as well as myopinion but I am happy to defer to our elected
representatives who are in positions to see more globally (and
strategically) than I can with my limited experience .... .

Nicolas

#########

Bill, a few questions (for when you have time, of course, and with thx in
advance):

why wouldn't an amendment pass? and what was the outreach vote that had the
GNSO divided?

Can someone comment on the economy/culture of vote trading/politics between
both GNSO's SGs? is there for instance a recent paper recounting recent
negotiations or some such?


On 18/01/2012 8:04 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> >  I believe that anyone who does vote for it, should be ready to support
its principles in any negotiation or risk the same approbation you are
concerned about now.  To hope that it will be ok, because ALAC will object
may not be the most advisable course.  Then again, US politics has taught me
that there does not need to be a necessary connection between how one votes,
what one says and what one does, so in the long run, perhaps it is only
karma and doing what you think is right that matters.
> US politics is a rich vein to mine for depressing lessons, but I'm not
sure I'd like to embrace that one.  I do suspect though that any SO/AC, not
just ALAC, that enters into discussion with GNSO will only accept rules of
engagement they find amenable, so even if GNSO sez it wants x that's not the
end of the matter.
>
> We could defer, amend, both.  Any thoughts on my suggestion in that
regard?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120118/e61373cd/attachment-0001.html>