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

[Konstantinos Komaitis]

No - it was sent as an attachment to Heather. I will post it on my blog tomorrow and send you all the link so we can tweet about it....

KK

Sent from my iPad

On 28 Sep 2011, at 19:02, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Does the NCUC letter live on the web anywhere, so I can link to it and tweet about it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
> 
>> Thanks everybody for the input - the letter is now send in it's short version. Will keep you all posted.
>> 
>> KK
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On 28 Sep 2011, at 18:58, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks, KK.  I'm really glad you are sending this letter!
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 1:48 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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/
>>>> <NCUC Letter to the GAC, re UDRP(final).pdf>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
>