[NCSG-Discuss] ICANN is bottom-up, except for when it is top-down. Fwd: Memorandum on the Trademark Clearinghouse ³Strawman Solution²

[David Cake]

On 22/03/2013, at 10:00 PM, Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU wrote:

> It seems to me that there may be a good topic for the SG to raise with the Board here during the Board-NCSG meeting in Beijing. Several recent developments such as: (1) the Board's unilateral contract amendment power for both Registry and Registrar Accreditation Agreements; (2) the sudden introduction of the PIC Specification (presumably related to GAC pressure); (3) the imposition of a to-be-determined new WHOIS policy; and, now, (4) the adoption of much of the TM "strawman" proposal - all call into question the relevance and sanctity of the GNSO's policy development processes.
> 
> This relates also to the whole "policy vs implementation" discussion that's ongoing.
> 
> Two ideas for the group to consider, therefore:
> 
> (1) [To our Councilors] Will the GNSO Council stand aside and allow these process runarounds to occur?

	As a councillor, I feel very strongly about the strawman decision, especially the '+50' decision. We haven't discussed specific action yet, but I'm sure it will be discussed in Beijing, and I will be pushing for the strongest possible objection from the council.

	
	Regards

		David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130325/7b0922d5/attachment-0001.html>