[NCSG-Discuss] The Board, IGO entitlement to special protections and 28 Feb

[David Cake]

On 14/02/2013, at 9:48 AM, Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU wrote:

> Good to see the support from NCUC and NPOC members! I was on the call with Avri today and it was really odd. May I request our Councilors to make the point Avri made about maintaining the integrity of the PDP process during the Council call tomorrow?

	I am willing to speak during the council call to make this point. I strongly agree that any move to restrict IGO/INGO names at this point is very premature. 

	
	Regards
		David
> 
> It seems to me that all the GNSO Council needs to say to the Board at this time is that the Working Group for the PDP is going strong, doing plenty of work and having lots of excellent discussions. As such, rather than act in haste/under pressure from the GAC/peremptorily, the Board ought to wait for the GNSO's PDP to run its course. The Council should convey to the Board its belief that the PDP WG will come up with a set of firm and implementable recommendations that will have been thoroughly discussed with some of the affected IGOs and INGOs, and advise the Board to desist till this is the case.
> 
> 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  
> 
> 
> >>>
> From:
> "klaus.stoll" <klaus.stoll at CHASQUINET.ORG>
> To:
> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> Date:
> 2/13/2013 5:46 PM
> Subject:
> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] The Board, IGO entitlement to special protections and 28 Feb                  
> Dear Avr
> 
> Greetings. If there is any way I can help to draft a statement to the board
> before the 28th please let me know.
> 
> Yours
> 
> Klais
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:23 PM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: The Board, IGO entitlement to special protections and 28 Feb
> 
> Thanks Avri,
> 
> This is disturbing news.  Hope you can get a quorum of the brainy people
> in the group to create a sound response.  I wish I was thirty years
> younger.  Looking forward to discussions.
> 
> Best
> 
> Lou
> 
> On 2/13/2013 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > During yesterday's meeting we discussed the irem on the g-cpuncil agenda
> > pertaining to special protection for IGO, given the deadline of 28 Feb for
> > Board consideration of yet another preemptive assignment of an entitlement
> > to protection, as was done for the RCRC and IOC.
> >
> > It appears that Thomas is planning to suggest that the GNSO support a
> > decision by the Board granting entitlements to IGO names as suggest by the
> > GAC.
> >
> > Unfortunately Evan and I were the only one to speak out agains the board
> > making the decisions at this time because:
> >
> > A. it is not the same as the RCRC/IOC case since a PDP is ongoing and this
> > prejudices that work
> > B.  It is not an emergency
> >
> > But Alan, the IOC and the Greg Shatan (IGO) spoke in favor of getting this
> > new entitlement as soon as possible, so the recommendation from Thomas
> > will be for the creation of the new entitlements, once again preempting
> > the rule of PDP.
> >
> > Note: Alan also suggested that if we don't like this or the previous
> > RCRC/IOC entitlement decision, we should file a reconsideration.  For
> > once, I agree with him.
> >
> > I would also note that no one from the RrSg or RySG ventured an opinion.
> >
> > At this point we have, perhaps, until 28 Feb to file a statement rejecting
> > yet another attack against the Rule of PDP.  Should we be working on one?
> >
> > Also should we file a request for reconsideration of the previous decision
> > on RCRC and IOC?  I am less sure about this because since there was no PDP
> > in process at the time.  While the best thing for the Board to have done
> > would have been to request a PDP, there was no rule that barred them from
> > the making a preemptive decision as they did.  Yes it is against the pubic
> > interest in that it erodes the confidence in the ICANN and its processes,
> > but it is not prevented by the bylaws.
> >
> > avri
> >

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130214/ef90a9a1/attachment-0001.html>