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

[Konstantinos Komaitis]

Dear all,

Please find attached the final version of the letter to be sent to the GAC. Hearing everyone, I think the short, not pissing people off version is the best approach. I am planning on sending this by the end of business day today.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy at seltzer.com] 
Sent: ?????, 27 ??????????? 2011 2:34 ??
To: Brenden Kuerbis
Cc: William Drake; Rafik Dammak; Robin Gross; Avri Doria; Milton L Mueller; Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU; Konstantinos Komaitis; EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [Ec-ncuc] NCUC letter to the GAC, RE UDRP

+1
Attached makes that change and minor typo/grammar suggestions.

--Wendy

On 09/27/2011 09:21 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
> I like this revision, especially linking to the AoC.
> 
> On Sep 27, 2011 8:32 AM, "William Drake" <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:
>>
> 


--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCUC Letter to the GAC, re UDRP(final).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 132971 bytes
Desc: NCUC Letter to the GAC, re UDRP(final).pdf
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ec-ncuc/attachments/20110928/8b429aae/attachment-0001.pdf>