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

[Norbert Klein]

Thanks, Mary for the advice, and David for the follow-up.

I appreciate such orientation as I am preparing to substitute again for 
Joy at the GNSO meeting in a couple of hours.

Any further advice from anybody?


Norbert

=

On 14 2.2013 10:32, David Cake wrote:
>
> On 14/02/2013, at 9:48 AM, Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 
>> <mailto:klaus.stoll at CHASQUINET.ORG>>
>> *To:*
>> 	
>> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20130214/8ae19568/attachment-0001.html>