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

[Rafik Dammak]

hello,

the issue is those principles are close to what we heard as remarks from
other councillors many times in council calls when it was about JAS charter
issues or JIG report issue and I don't see real progress. I am not blaming
our ncsg representatives there . I am in favor of deferring the motion and
it makes sense as the chair of the dt and the proponent of the motion is
not going to attend the council call today.

for amendments, I am not sure that we can change really there in substance
so I do think that we can ask questions and send back to DT to rework their
proposal. the DT cannot ignore a SG comments  carried through gnso council
and should reply to them.

@Mary btw, I don't see any problem to vote against. we have ncsg members in
different WG, WT and DT and they do their best while they have many times
to carry minority views. so that doesn't prevent to vote no when it is
needed.

Best Regards,

Rafik Dammak



2012/1/19 <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 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>>>
>     *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/20120119/099238a2/attachment-0001.html>