[Ec-ncuc] NCUC letter to the GAC, RE UDRP

[Konstantinos Komaitis]

Thank you all for your contributions to this letter. I feel that we are all losing time trying to fit in language that might actually not even be read. Two things that we need to consider: first, let?s go with a short, polite letter, which gives us more chances of being read by the GAC. Knowing how it works, I will be surprised if they get to read it at all, given the levels of their bureaucracy. Second, I think we have already made our point of how busted they are through my blog and by the fact that they sent the email they did sent to the GNSO. They know we are on to them.

So, if you don?t mind, let?s go with the short version, which I attach. It is brief, to the point and I think that it actually has the most chances of getting read.

@Avri ? apologies but lost the email ? which paragraph are you referring to?

Thanks

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building,
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org<http://www.komaitis.org>

From: bkuerbis at gmail.com [mailto:bkuerbis at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Brenden Kuerbis
Sent: ?????, 27 ??????????? 2011 2:22 ??
To: William Drake
Cc: Wendy Seltzer; Rafik Dammak; Robin Gross; Avri Doria; Milton L Mueller; Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU; Konstantinos Komaitis; EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org; Brenden Kuerbis
Subject: Re: [Ec-ncuc] NCUC letter to the GAC, RE UDRP


I like this revision, especially linking to the AoC.

On Sep 27, 2011 8:32 AM, "William Drake" <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am against the inclusion of the preferential treatment paragraph.  I think we should just make our points and demand they talk to use without this, which seems to me to be weaken the argument.
>
> What about this as a compromise.  Replace
>
> However, NCUC is concerned that certain GNSO stakeholders were provided access to drafts of GAC Communiques and permitted to help shape the views of the entire GAC, while other stakeholders, including NCUC, were not afforded such preferential access and opportunity to directly dialogue with the GAC on their views on the UDRP.  The preferential treatment of certain stakeholders consulted in the process of drafting the GAC Communique is troubling to noncommercial users and appears to undermine ICANN's multi-stakeholder model of checks and balances and its ability to serve the public interest.   Given this, we would like to reiterate the main arguments made in our comments submitted[1] during the public comment period concerning the UDRP for your consideration:
>
> With this:
>
> However, NCUC is concerned that certain GNSO stakeholders were provided special access to drafts of GAC Communiques and permitted to help shape the views of the GAC, while other stakeholders, including NCUC, were not.  This asymmetry in the process of drafting the GAC Communique seems contrary to both the core tenets of ICANN's multistakeholder model of checks and balances and its public interest obligations under the Affirmation of Commitments.
>
> In this context, we would like to reiterate the main arguments made in our comments submitted[1] during the public comment period concerning the UDRP:
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ec-ncuc/attachments/20110927/d6d59fb8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCUC Letter to the GAC, re UDRP(short).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 35834 bytes
Desc: NCUC Letter to the GAC, re UDRP(short).docx
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ec-ncuc/attachments/20110927/d6d59fb8/attachment-0001.docx>