From robin  Wed Nov  2 23:10:58 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 14:10:58 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New PC-NCSG email list (more manageable)
Message-ID: <3B511D79-737D-4549-88B7-9E17B713FC62@ipjustice.org>

Dear NCSG Policy Committee Members:

I'm migrating the PC-NCSG mailing list over to a system that I know how to use - and won't have to (unsuccessfully) try to approve/reject so many stray emails.

So the new email address for the NCSG Policy Committee list is now:
     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org

As per the charter, this list is open and publicly archived at: 
    http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/

In addition to the PC members listed below, Avri was added to this PC-NCSG list as an observer as requested.  Please let me know if I've overlooked anyone else who should be added as an observer to the PC-NCSG list.

Thanks,
Robin


NCSG Policy Committee Members (Oct. 2011)
Role	Full Voting Member	Observing Member
NCSG Chair	Robin Gross	 
NCSG GNSO Councilor	Wendy Seltzer	 
NCSG GNSO Councilor 
William Drake	 
NCSG GNSO Councilor 
Mary Wong	 
NCSG GNSO Councilor 
Rafik Dammak	 
NCSG GNSO Councilor 
Joy Liddicoat	 
NCSG GNSO Councilor 
Wolfgang Kleinw?chter 
 
NCUC Appointee	Brenden Kuerbis	 
NCUC Appointee	Konstantinos Komaitis	 
NPOC Appointee 
Klaus Stoll	 
NPOC Appointee	 ???	 
CC Appointee	 	Dorothy Gordon





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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111102/d44d8f5a/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Wed Nov  2 23:16:08 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 14:16:08 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Testing NCSG Policy Committee email list
Message-ID: <B736B1FC-1D7A-4169-A98F-40F889335A4C@ipjustice.org>

  testing  



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






From k.komaitis  Wed Nov  2 23:19:50 2011
From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 21:19:50 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Testing NCSG Policy Committee email list
In-Reply-To: <B736B1FC-1D7A-4169-A98F-40F889335A4C@ipjustice.org>
References: <B736B1FC-1D7A-4169-A98F-40F889335A4C@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <9DED6C38-4F8C-400C-8A07-293E88AE66AF@strath.ac.uk>

Got this - thanks Robin for setting this up.

KK

Sent from my iPad

On 2 Nov 2011, at 21:17, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

>  testing  
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From robin  Thu Nov  3 05:37:13 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 20:37:13 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Please mark availability 14-16 Nov for NCSG Policy
	Committee Meeting
Message-ID: <08B02720-1AB1-4665-9E7F-5A3C956EA6E5@ipjustice.org>

Dear Members of NCSG Policy Committee:

Please mark your availability for the November 2011 NCSG Open Policy Discussion:
     http://www.doodle.com/pr2ezua2fves3su4

This monthly discussion is intended to facilitate direct interaction between the NCSG Policy Committee & the entire NCSG membership.  The first hour of the meeting will be devoted to discussing NCSG's main policy goals in the coming weeks, so it is especially important that you attend.  

All NCSG-PC members (including all NCSG GNSO Councilors) & GNSO Working Group representatives are expected to participate.

The call will be held from 14-16 November, just before the GNSO Council Meeting's next mtg on 17 November.

This poll closes on Friday 4 Nov 2011 (EoB in CA), so please mark your availability asap. 

Thank you!
Robin



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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111102/389de1ea/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Mon Nov  7 12:05:01 2011
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:05:01 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Comments Requested: Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan
References: <5353AAF4-BC34-4760-B55D-DF44504671CD@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <C9F38F92-B7F5-4813-B1FA-19766B6A8DD2@uzh.ch>

Anyone care about this either way?



Begin forwarded message:

> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Date: November 7, 2011 10:53:38 AM GMT+01:00
> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> Cc: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: Re: Comments Requested: Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan
> 
> HI Evan
> 
> Thanks for the note.  A priori, since this doesn't particularly involve us, I'd guess that in the universe of things that concern NC enough to spend capital on. this is a rather distant star.  But I can pass it on to our policy committee and see if there's a different view?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 2:24 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hey there.
>> 
>> I don't know if you or the NCSG may be interested, but I've forwarded a position I'm asking ALAC to consider, copied from something I sent to the At-Large mailing list. I'm very interested to know your POVs on this. Feedback so far has been positive.
>> 
>> - Evan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
>> Date: 5 November 2011 11:02
>> Subject: Re: Comments Requested: Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan
>> To: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> 
>> 
>> In response to the call for comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan, I wish to advance the following position as ALAC advice:
>> 
>> Periodically, ICANN indulges itself in a re-evaluation of its Strategic Plan. There are presentations from senior staff, workshops, and a significant chunk of At-Large policy-making time allocated to this endeavour.
>> 
>> We submit that that this exercise is a massive waste of time and energy, not just on the part of At-Large but of all of ICANN. In fact, at this critical time (US Government contracts up for renewal, changes at both CEO and Board Chair, and increasing pressure from governments to scrap the whole multi-stakeholder experiment), such an energy consuming exercise in "navel-gazing" simply calls public attention to the extent of which ICANN is out of touch with the community it is supposed to serve. We submit that the abandonment of this charade of creating laminated "motherhood statements" and diversion of energies to matters more pressing is urgently called upon.
>> 
>> ICANN's role is well defined and its scope should be fairly focused. It strategic plan should need fine tuning at best -- and certainly not an overhaul of the kind being requested on a frequent and ongoing basis. That any broad changes are contemplated indicates either mission creep or capture -- or both. ICANN has never lived up to its aspirational "strategic" plans of the past, allowing staff rather than the community to really determine the priorities regardless of what the words say. Compounding the farce is the charging of this same staff with evaluating its own success. As a result, the community spends more time in endless reviews of the plan than in actually holding ICANN accountable for its execution.
>> 
>> We request that ICANN focus its resources -- and those of its volunteers -- on genuinely implementing the strategies it has already defined before repeatedly coming back to the community to engage in further rounds of self-absorbed distraction.
>> 
>> 
>> I have added this statement to the comment section of the appropriate At-Large wiki page. I wish to submit it for approval as a position of the At-Large Advisory Committee. Failing that, I would like to solicit support from community members in the submission of a minority position. I am certainly open to modification of the message to make it more broadly acceptable but I hope that the main point intended by the statement is reasonably unambiguous.
>> 
>> Note: I am doing this as an individual ALAC member, not as representing any existing position of my region or the ALAC Executive Committee to which I belong. A version of this statement has already been made to the NARALO mailing list, and during an ALAC teleconference briefing on the strategic plan.
>> 
>> Thank you for your consideration.
>> 
>> - Evan
>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111107/54d50d79/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Nov  7 14:16:01 2011
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 21:16:01 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Comments Requested: Draft 2012-2015 Strategic
	Plan
In-Reply-To: <C9F38F92-B7F5-4813-B1FA-19766B6A8DD2@uzh.ch>
References: <5353AAF4-BC34-4760-B55D-DF44504671CD@uzh.ch>
	<C9F38F92-B7F5-4813-B1FA-19766B6A8DD2@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkm6guy+PdWXSiM5rV82EWdirsDnnuLFb=_CycCk9SSMQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Bill,

maybe if he give some background that will be helpful,

Best,

Rafik

2011/11/7 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>

> Anyone care about this either way?
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> *Date: *November 7, 2011 10:53:38 AM GMT+01:00
> *To: *Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> *Cc: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> *Subject: **Re: Comments Requested: Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan*
>
> HI Evan
>
> Thanks for the note.  A priori, since this doesn't particularly involve
> us, I'd guess that in the universe of things that concern NC enough to
> spend capital on. this is a rather distant star.  But I can pass it on to
> our policy committee and see if there's a different view?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 2:24 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
>
> Hey there.
>
> I don't know if you or the NCSG may be interested, but I've forwarded a
> position I'm asking ALAC to consider, copied from something I sent to the
> At-Large mailing list. I'm very interested to know your POVs on this.
> Feedback so far has been positive.
>
> - Evan
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> Date: 5 November 2011 11:02
> Subject: Re: Comments Requested: Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan
> To: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>
>
> In response to the call for comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan, I wish
> to advance the following position as ALAC advice:
>
>> *Periodically, ICANN indulges itself in a re-evaluation of its Strategic
>> Plan. There are presentations from senior staff, workshops, and a
>> significant chunk of At-Large policy-making time allocated to this
>> endeavour.*
>>
>> *We submit that that this exercise is a massive waste of time and
>> energy, not just on the part of At-Large but of all of ICANN. In fact, at
>> this critical time (US Government contracts up for renewal, changes at both
>> CEO and Board Chair, and increasing pressure from governments to scrap the
>> whole multi-stakeholder experiment), such an energy consuming exercise in
>> "navel-gazing" simply calls public attention to the extent of which ICANN
>> is out of touch with the community it is supposed to serve. We submit that
>> the abandonment of this charade of creating laminated "motherhood
>> statements" and diversion of energies to matters more pressing is urgently
>> called upon.*
>>
>> *ICANN's role is well defined and its scope should be fairly focused. It
>> strategic plan should need fine tuning at best -- and certainly not an
>> overhaul of the kind being requested on a frequent and ongoing basis. That
>> any broad changes are contemplated indicates either mission creep or
>> capture -- or both. ICANN has never lived up to its aspirational
>> "strategic" plans of the past, allowing staff rather than the community to
>> really determine the priorities regardless of what the words say.
>> Compounding the farce is the charging of this same staff with evaluating
>> its own success. As a result, the community spends more time in endless
>> reviews of the plan than in actually holding ICANN accountable for its
>> execution.*
>>
>> *We request that ICANN focus its resources -- and those of its
>> volunteers -- on genuinely implementing the strategies it has already
>> defined before repeatedly coming back to the community to engage in further
>> rounds of self-absorbed distraction.*
>>
>
> I have added this statement to the comment section of the appropriate
> At-Large wiki page<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace+for+the+ICANN+Strategic+Plan+2012-2015>.
> I wish to submit it for approval as a position of the At-Large Advisory
> Committee. Failing that, I would like to solicit support from community
> members in the submission of a minority position. I am certainly open to
> modification of the message to make it more broadly acceptable but I hope
> that the main point intended by the statement is reasonably unambiguous.
>
> Note: I am doing this as an individual ALAC member, not as representing
> any existing position of my region or the ALAC Executive Committee to which
> I belong. A version of this statement has already been made to the NARALO
> mailing list, and during an ALAC teleconference briefing on the strategic
> plan.
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> - Evan
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111107/5bf96d14/attachment.html>


From robin  Mon Nov  7 20:59:21 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:59:21 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: WG: [gnso-chairs] Nov 17 meeting draft agenda
References: <FD9639322266774594CCBC99E438A050049DB704@s4de8dsaank.west.t-com.de>
Message-ID: <B035D69F-A909-4DAA-B9EE-41DD938290A8@ipjustice.org>

FYI:

Begin forwarded message:

> From: <KnobenW at telekom.de>
> Date: November 7, 2011 6:31:04 AM PST
> To: <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, <met at msk.com>, <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: WG: [gnso-chairs] Nov 17 meeting draft agenda
> 
> All,
> 
> I hope you were able to rest a little back home after Dakar.
> 
> Attached is a very early first draft of an agenda made by St?phane for the Nov 17 GNSO council meeting. If from your SG/constituency point of view any agenda items should be added to this agenda pls. let me know asap.
> 
> According to the rules the deadline for motions is 8 days before the meeting.
> 
> 
> Kind regards
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
> 
> 




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111107/dbdc6163/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 17 November 2011 v0.1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 37888 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111107/dbdc6163/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111107/dbdc6163/attachment-0003.html>


From Mary.Wong  Tue Nov  8 18:16:27 2011
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:16:27 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: WG: [gnso-chairs] Nov 17 meeting draft agenda
In-Reply-To: <B035D69F-A909-4DAA-B9EE-41DD938290A8@ipjustice.org>
References: <FD9639322266774594CCBC99E438A050049DB704@s4de8dsaank.west.t-com.de>
	<B035D69F-A909-4DAA-B9EE-41DD938290A8@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <4EB90F8B0200005B0007EE8B@smtp.law.unh.edu>

Thanks, Robin. 
 
All, sorry for being MIA the past week or so - 3-day power outage at
home plus huge back-load of work :(
 
Deadline for motions is tomorrow (Weds 9 Nov). I can try to crank out
something on UDRP review - should I?
 
Cheers
Mary

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
To:<pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Date: 11/7/2011 1:59 PM
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: WG: [gnso-chairs] Nov 17 meeting draft agenda
FYI:

Begin forwarded message:



From: <KnobenW at telekom.de>
Date: November 7, 2011 6:31:04 AM PST
To: <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, <met at msk.com>,
<tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, <robin at ipjustice.org>
Subject: WG: [gnso-chairs] Nov 17 meeting draft agenda

All,

I hope you were able to rest a little back home after Dakar.

Attached is a very early first draft of an agenda made by St?phane for
the Nov 17 GNSO council meeting. If from your SG/constituency point of
view any agenda items should be added to this agenda pls. let me know
asap.

According to the rules the deadline for motions is 8 days before the
meeting.


Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111108/7987594b/attachment.html>


From k.komaitis  Tue Nov  8 18:37:23 2011
From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:37:23 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: WG: [gnso-chairs] Nov 17 meeting draft agenda
In-Reply-To: <4EB90F8B0200005B0007EE8B@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <FD9639322266774594CCBC99E438A050049DB704@s4de8dsaank.west.t-com.de>
	<B035D69F-A909-4DAA-B9EE-41DD938290A8@ipjustice.org>
	<4EB90F8B0200005B0007EE8B@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <D8B87832BDC13F45B7265357FCF323C30167B398E369@E2K7-MS2.ds.strath.ac.uk>

Thanks Mary for this. I was expecting Jeff to do so as he said he would contact me but he still hasn?t. can you please crack something up (since you do know how it is done) and put it before the GNSO call tomorrow?
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: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Sent: ?????, 8 ????????? 2011 4:16 ??
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; Robin Gross
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: WG: [gnso-chairs] Nov 17 meeting draft agenda

Thanks, Robin.

All, sorry for being MIA the past week or so - 3-day power outage at home plus huge back-load of work :(

Deadline for motions is tomorrow (Weds 9 Nov). I can try to crank out something on UDRP review - should I?

Cheers
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
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:

Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>

To:

<pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>

Date:

11/7/2011 1:59 PM

Subject:

[PC-NCSG] Fwd: WG: [gnso-chairs] Nov 17 meeting draft agenda

FYI:

Begin forwarded message:


From: <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
Date: November 7, 2011 6:31:04 AM PST
To: <marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>, <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>, <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: WG: [gnso-chairs] Nov 17 meeting draft agenda

All,

I hope you were able to rest a little back home after Dakar.

Attached is a very early first draft of an agenda made by St?phane for the Nov 17 GNSO council meeting. If from your SG/constituency point of view any agenda items should be added to this agenda pls. let me know asap.

According to the rules the deadline for motions is 8 days before the meeting.


Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111108/e03ce9c4/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Wed Nov  9 00:52:50 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:52:50 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9
	November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F341849F82D4AB9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <C4BD04F7-D14E-450C-8462-53992B0806A7@ipjustice.org>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: November 8, 2011 2:46:50 PM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9 November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC
> 
>  
> Dear Councillors,
> 
> Reports, motions  and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.Wednesday, 9 November 2011) of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 November, 2011 at 20:00 UTC.
> 
> If you have reports for consideration, please send them directly to me at GNSO.Secretariat at gnso.icann.org so that they can be forwarded to the Council. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list.
> 
> Thank you very much.
> Kind regards,
>  
> Glen
>  
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111108/d616bcab/attachment.html>


From Mary.Wong  Wed Nov  9 01:01:00 2011
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:01:00 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP
In-Reply-To: <C4BD04F7-D14E-450C-8462-53992B0806A7@ipjustice.org>
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F341849F82D4AB9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<C4BD04F7-D14E-450C-8462-53992B0806A7@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <4EB96E5C0200005B0007EF4E@smtp.law.unh.edu>

Sorry this was done in a bit of a hurry - can folks please comment on
the attached? I'm in airports tomorrow morning and get on a plane for
Asia around noon EST, so either someone else takes over the drafting pen
if this is too far from what you had in mind and takes charge of sending
it in, or if you can let me know ASAP, I can send it in either as-is or
with just a bit of tinkering.
 
Thanks,
Mary


 
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
To:<pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Date: 11/8/2011 5:53 PM
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9
November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC


Begin forwarded message:



From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: November 8, 2011 2:46:50 PM PST
To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9 November for
GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC



Dear Councillors,Reports, motions  and documents for consideration are
due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.Wednesday, 9 November
2011) of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 November, 2011 at 20:00 UTC.

If you have reports for consideration, please send them directly to me
at GNSO.Secretariat at gnso.icann.org so that they can be forwarded to the
Council. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list.

Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
Glen
Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111108/9e4bfd90/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PROPOSED NCUC MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 14140 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111108/9e4bfd90/attachment-0001.docx>


From joy  Wed Nov  9 04:49:13 2011
From: joy (Joy Liddicoat)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:49:13 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP
In-Reply-To: <4EB96E5C0200005B0007EF4E@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F341849F82D4AB9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>	<C4BD04F7-D14E-450C-8462-53992B0806A7@ipjustice.org>
	<4EB96E5C0200005B0007EF4E@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <006b01cc9e8a$2d8cf630$88a6e290$@apc.org>

Thanks Mary for this draft ? great job. Some quick thoughts and suggested amendments in the attached (mindful of my newness to this area and the labyrinth of ICANN process related rules?.):  

?         How specific does the resolution need to be? Would it be enough to have resolution 1 (ie the first para starting ?RESOVLED?) and in RESOLVED 2 simply request the drafting team to submit the working group charter to the GNSO for approval at its next meeting? 

?         The preamble could be strengthened by taking (1) ? (3) in the RESOLVED 2 para and putting it in the preamble ? giving a nod to the concerns in the ICANN staff report, but stating that these are manageable, without bogging down the resolution with that detail 

?         In relation to the resolutions and areas of focus ? I wonder if this casts the net too widely? By suggesting a focus on process and  substance and multiple working groups the risk is (even supposing the motion is successful) that the task is too big. Perhaps a smaller more tightly focused piece of work would have more chance of getting traction and be more difficult to argue against?

?         I like (3) ? phasing the work, but could this also be narrowed to make it more manageable, for example: focusing initially on certain types of disputes (such as only those related to ccTLDs) or certain parts of the process 

?         Does RESOLVED 3 need ?and such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate? added ? to cover all bases?

I?ve attached a revised version with these suggested amendments (though not on point 4 above - re narrowing the scope - at this stage). Fire away all!

Cheers

Joy 

From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 12:01 p.m.
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; Robin Gross
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP

 

Sorry this was done in a bit of a hurry - can folks please comment on the attached? I'm in airports tomorrow morning and get on a plane for Asia around noon EST, so either someone else takes over the drafting pen if this is too far from what you had in mind and takes charge of sending it in, or if you can let me know ASAP, I can send it in either as-is or with just a bit of tinkering.

 

Thanks,

Mary



 

 

Mary W S Wong

Professor of Law

Chair, Graduate IP Programs

Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: 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: 

Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>


To:

<pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>


Date: 

11/8/2011 5:53 PM


Subject: 

[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9 November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC

 

 

Begin forwarded message:





From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>

Date: November 8, 2011 2:46:50 PM PST

To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>

Subject: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9 November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC





Dear Councillors,

Reports, motions  and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.Wednesday, 9 November 2011) of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 November, 2011 at 20:00 UTC.

If you have reports for consideration, please send them directly to me at  <mailto:GNSO.Secretariat at gnso.icann.org> GNSO.Secretariat at gnso.icann.org so that they can be forwarded to the Council. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list.

Thank you very much.
Kind regards,

Glen

Glen de Saint G?ry

GNSO Secretariat

 <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org

 <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.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





 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111109/7943fbf3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PROPOSED NCUC MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP(2).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 17410 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111109/7943fbf3/attachment-0001.docx>


From joy  Wed Nov  9 05:17:01 2011
From: joy (Joy Liddicoat)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 16:17:01 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination
In-Reply-To: <6B58F38A-C8AC-4E6B-847E-1824821D74A8@indom.com>
References: <CAD9D3E6.113B5%lesley@nominet.org.uk>
	<6B58F38A-C8AC-4E6B-847E-1824821D74A8@indom.com>
Message-ID: <009101cc9e8e$0e9ac370$2bd04a50$@apc.org>

Hi ? just pondering this and the NCSG list discussions and wondering whether
the issue of domain name takedown might be a good one to suggest for joint
ccNSO GNSO work ? esp given the recent Verisign episode, it is not just a
ccTLD issue. Lots of differences between the two but real issues in terms of
the rights of registrants that would echo across both and likely to be of
increasing focus 
.. 

Worth raising with members?

Joy

 

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of St?phane Van Gelder
Sent: Monday, 7 November 2011 11:56 p.m.
To: GNSO Council
Cc: Lesley Cowley
Subject: [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination

 

Councillors,

 

Please see the email from Leslie Cowley below.

 

As Wolf has kindly volunteered to lead our agenda organizational efforts for
Costa Rica, I have indicated to Leslie that he would be the main contact
person for the ccNSO in this effort.

 

I also wanted to make sure the Council was aware of these initiatives to
strengthen the cooperation between the ccNSO and us. Judging from our recent
joint meeting conversations, this is clearly something that both SOs find
useful so it's great that this is being worked on.

 

Please contact Wolf or myself if you have any suggestions or comments on our
interactions with the ccNSO.

 

Thanks,

 

St?phane

 

 

 

D?but du message r?exp?di? :





De : Lesley Cowley <lesley at nominet.org.uk>

Objet : ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination

Date : 4 novembre 2011 18:39:50 HNEC

? : St?phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>

Cc : Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer at sidn.nl>, Juselius Juhani
<juhani.juselius at ficora.fi>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org>,
Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek at icann.org>

 

Hi Stephane,

 

As briefly mentioned at our last joint meeting, we would like to enhance our
meeting co-ordination. The ccNSO Council has therefore resolved to appoint
two volunteer Councillors, who will take over our part of the organisation
of our joint sessions from the ccNSO Chair, with a view to ensuring the
sessions remain interesting, well-planned and a good use of all of our
Councillors precious time. From the ccNSO Secretariat, Bart will provide
support and Gabi will organise ccNSO logistics.

 

If you could kindly advise who from the GNSO the team could work with that
would be appreciated, I very much hope that the GNSO will consider making
similar arrangements to assist with your heavy load as Chair.

 

Kind regards,

 

Lesley

 

Lesley Cowley, OBE

CEO

Nominet

Minerva House

Edmund Halley Road

Oxford Science Park

Oxford, OX4 4DQ

UK

 

Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211

http://www.nominet.org.uk/

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111109/01de6b5f/attachment.html>


From k.komaitis  Wed Nov  9 12:09:14 2011
From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:09:14 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP
In-Reply-To: <006b01cc9e8a$2d8cf630$88a6e290$@apc.org>
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F341849F82D4AB9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<C4BD04F7-D14E-450C-8462-53992B0806A7@ipjustice.org>
	<4EB96E5C0200005B0007EF4E@smtp.law.unh.edu>
	<006b01cc9e8a$2d8cf630$88a6e290$@apc.org>
Message-ID: <D8B87832BDC13F45B7265357FCF323C30167B398E36C@E2K7-MS2.ds.strath.ac.uk>

Thanks Mary and Joy for holding the drafting pen on this. I am attaching the latest version of the motion, with a couple of additions. I like Joy?s suggestions below ? just a couple of points:

?         In relation to the resolutions and areas of focus ? I wonder if this casts the net too widely? By suggesting a focus on process and  substance and multiple working groups the risk is (even supposing the motion is successful) that the task is too big. Perhaps a smaller more tightly focused piece of work would have more chance of getting traction and be more difficult to argue against?
This is a valid point and I totally agree with it. Although there are various issues concerning the substance of the UDRP, it might be wise to initiate a PDP on the process of the UDRP and then continue with the substance. This way we have a two-stage approach, which is more organized and we can say that it won?t create as many problems. I remember that the IPC was particularly concerned with changing the substance (although they also had issues with the process), so this might be a compromise.

?         I like (3) ? phasing the work, but could this also be narrowed to make it more manageable, for example: focusing initially on certain types of disputes (such as only those related to ccTLDs) or certain parts of the process
Again great suggestion Joy. One thing ? the UDRP is mainly focusing on the gTLDs (although it has been implemented by ccTLD operators and Registries). So, we can suggest that initially we would like to focus on those disputes concerning free speech (mainly paragraph 4(c)(iii)) and the way this provision is interpreted. Another one is the bad faith registration AND use, which is interpreted by some panels as bad faith registration OR use ? going against the policy itself.
Can someone please make sure that this motion is sent to Glen?
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: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat
Sent: ???????, 9 ????????? 2011 2:49 ??
To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; 'Robin Gross'
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP

Thanks Mary for this draft ? great job. Some quick thoughts and suggested amendments in the attached (mindful of my newness to this area and the labyrinth of ICANN process related rules?.):

?         How specific does the resolution need to be? Would it be enough to have resolution 1 (ie the first para starting ?RESOVLED?) and in RESOLVED 2 simply request the drafting team to submit the working group charter to the GNSO for approval at its next meeting?

?         The preamble could be strengthened by taking (1) ? (3) in the RESOLVED 2 para and putting it in the preamble ? giving a nod to the concerns in the ICANN staff report, but stating that these are manageable, without bogging down the resolution with that detail

?         In relation to the resolutions and areas of focus ? I wonder if this casts the net too widely? By suggesting a focus on process and  substance and multiple working groups the risk is (even supposing the motion is successful) that the task is too big. Perhaps a smaller more tightly focused piece of work would have more chance of getting traction and be more difficult to argue against?

?         I like (3) ? phasing the work, but could this also be narrowed to make it more manageable, for example: focusing initially on certain types of disputes (such as only those related to ccTLDs) or certain parts of the process

?         Does RESOLVED 3 need ?and such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate? added ? to cover all bases?
I?ve attached a revised version with these suggested amendments (though not on point 4 above - re narrowing the scope - at this stage). Fire away all!
Cheers
Joy
From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 12:01 p.m.
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; Robin Gross
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP

Sorry this was done in a bit of a hurry - can folks please comment on the attached? I'm in airports tomorrow morning and get on a plane for Asia around noon EST, so either someone else takes over the drafting pen if this is too far from what you had in mind and takes charge of sending it in, or if you can let me know ASAP, I can send it in either as-is or with just a bit of tinkering.

Thanks,
Mary




Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
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:

Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>

To:

<pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>

Date:

11/8/2011 5:53 PM

Subject:

[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9 November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC



Begin forwarded message:

From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
Date: November 8, 2011 2:46:50 PM PST
To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9 November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC

Dear Councillors,
Reports, motions  and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.Wednesday, 9 November 2011) of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 November, 2011 at 20:00 UTC.

If you have reports for consideration, please send them directly to me at GNSO.Secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:GNSO.Secretariat at gnso.icann.org> so that they can be forwarded to the Council. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list.

Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
Glen
Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
http://gnso.icann.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<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111109/9302c6cc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PROPOSED NCUC MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP(2).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 17764 bytes
Desc: PROPOSED NCUC MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP(2).docx
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111109/9302c6cc/attachment-0001.docx>


From k.komaitis  Wed Nov  9 15:54:18 2011
From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:54:18 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination
In-Reply-To: <009101cc9e8e$0e9ac370$2bd04a50$@apc.org>
References: <CAD9D3E6.113B5%lesley@nominet.org.uk>
	<6B58F38A-C8AC-4E6B-847E-1824821D74A8@indom.com>
	<009101cc9e8e$0e9ac370$2bd04a50$@apc.org>
Message-ID: <D8B87832BDC13F45B7265357FCF323C30167B398E374@E2K7-MS2.ds.strath.ac.uk>

Thanks for this suggestion Joy. I would support raising this issue to the list and I know that many of our members are interested in this issue. and, it certainly raises various concerns both in the context of gTLDs and ccTLDs.

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: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat
Sent: ???????, 9 ????????? 2011 3:17 ??
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination

Hi ? just pondering this and the NCSG list discussions and wondering whether the issue of domain name takedown might be a good one to suggest for joint ccNSO GNSO work ? esp given the recent Verisign episode, it is not just a ccTLD issue. Lots of differences between the two but real issues in terms of the rights of registrants that would echo across both and likely to be of increasing focus ?..
Worth raising with members?
Joy

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of St?phane Van Gelder
Sent: Monday, 7 November 2011 11:56 p.m.
To: GNSO Council
Cc: Lesley Cowley
Subject: [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination

Councillors,

Please see the email from Leslie Cowley below.

As Wolf has kindly volunteered to lead our agenda organizational efforts for Costa Rica, I have indicated to Leslie that he would be the main contact person for the ccNSO in this effort.

I also wanted to make sure the Council was aware of these initiatives to strengthen the cooperation between the ccNSO and us. Judging from our recent joint meeting conversations, this is clearly something that both SOs find useful so it's great that this is being worked on.

Please contact Wolf or myself if you have any suggestions or comments on our interactions with the ccNSO.

Thanks,

St?phane



D?but du message r?exp?di? :

De : Lesley Cowley <lesley at nominet.org.uk<mailto:lesley at nominet.org.uk>>
Objet : ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination
Date : 4 novembre 2011 18:39:50 HNEC
? : St?phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com>>
Cc : Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer at sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl>>, Juselius Juhani <juhani.juselius at ficora.fi<mailto:juhani.juselius at ficora.fi>>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel at icann.org>>, Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek at icann.org<mailto:gabriella.schittek at icann.org>>

Hi Stephane,

As briefly mentioned at our last joint meeting, we would like to enhance our meeting co-ordination. The ccNSO Council has therefore resolved to appoint two volunteer Councillors, who will take over our part of the organisation of our joint sessions from the ccNSO Chair, with a view to ensuring the sessions remain interesting, well-planned and a good use of all of our Councillors precious time. From the ccNSO Secretariat, Bart will provide support and Gabi will organise ccNSO logistics.

If you could kindly advise who from the GNSO the team could work with that would be appreciated, I very much hope that the GNSO will consider making similar arrangements to assist with your heavy load as Chair.

Kind regards,

Lesley

Lesley Cowley, OBE
CEO
Nominet
Minerva House
Edmund Halley Road
Oxford Science Park
Oxford, OX4 4DQ
UK

Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211
http://www.nominet.org.uk/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111109/8367c3fe/attachment-0001.html>


From Mary.Wong  Wed Nov  9 16:06:50 2011
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:06:50 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP
Message-ID: <4EBA42A60200005B0007F08C@smtp.law.unh.edu>

Thanks, Joy and KK. A couple of observations:

- the original reference to 2 UDRP sessions in Singapore was taken from the Report. I assume the 2nd session it refers to is the GNSO weekend working session where there was an update and discussion that was open to the community. I think we should leave it as two and not change it to one.

- the mention of the UDRP being the oldest policy that has not been reviewed, while true, doesn't seem to fit within the Whereas clause which mentions diversity of viewpoints. I can try to fit it in somewhere else, perhaps in one of the following whereas clauses which argues for doing the PDP, if you want it stated.

With those changes, I can send it to the Council unless someone else has comments. At this stage, it may be easier to put your comment in an email rather than revise the draft as it may be difficult for me to know whose is the more recent if several people start revising at the same time. Thanks!

I'm online for the next couple of hours and then get on a 17+ hour flight :-) 

Thanks and cheers
Mary

"Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>" <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:


Thanks Mary and Joy for holding the drafting pen on this. I am attaching the latest version of the motion, with a couple of additions. I like Joy?s suggestions below ? just a couple of points:

?         In relation to the resolutions and areas of focus ? I wonder if this casts the net too widely? By suggesting a focus on process and  substance and multiple working groups the risk is (even supposing the motion is successful) that the task is too big. Perhaps a smaller more tightly focused piece of work would have more chance of getting traction and be more difficult to argue against?
This is a valid point and I totally agree with it. Although there are various issues concerning the substance of the UDRP, it might be wise to initiate a PDP on the process of the UDRP and then continue with the substance. This way we have a two-stage approach, which is more organized and we can say that it won?t create as many problems. I remember that the IPC was particularly concerned with changing the substance (although they also had issues with the process), so this might be a compromise.

?         I like (3) ? phasing the work, but could this also be narrowed to make it more manageable, for example: focusing initially on certain types of disputes (such as only those related to ccTLDs) or certain parts of the process
Again great suggestion Joy. One thing ? the UDRP is mainly focusing on the gTLDs (although it has been implemented by ccTLD operators and Registries). So, we can suggest that initially we would like to focus on those disputes concerning free speech (mainly paragraph 4(c)(iii)) and the way this provision is interpreted. Another one is the bad faith registration AND use, which is interpreted by some panels as bad faith registration OR use ? going against the policy itself.
Can someone please make sure that this motion is sent to Glen?
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: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat
Sent: ???????, 9 ????????? 2011 2:49 ??
To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; 'Robin Gross'
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP

Thanks Mary for this draft ? great job. Some quick thoughts and suggested amendments in the attached (mindful of my newness to this area and the labyrinth of ICANN process related rules?.):

?         How specific does the resolution need to be? Would it be enough to have resolution 1 (ie the first para starting ?RESOVLED?) and in RESOLVED 2 simply request the drafting team to submit the working group charter to the GNSO for approval at its next meeting?

?         The preamble could be strengthened by taking (1) ? (3) in the RESOLVED 2 para and putting it in the preamble ? giving a nod to the concerns in the ICANN staff report, but stating that these are manageable, without bogging down the resolution with that detail

?         In relation to the resolutions and areas of focus ? I wonder if this casts the net too widely? By suggesting a focus on process and  substance and multiple working groups the risk is (even supposing the motion is successful) that the task is too big. Perhaps a smaller more tightly focused piece of work would have more chance of getting traction and be more difficult to argue against?

?         I like (3) ? phasing the work, but could this also be narrowed to make it more manageable, for example: focusing initially on certain types of disputes (such as only those related to ccTLDs) or certain parts of the process

?         Does RESOLVED 3 need ?and such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate? added ? to cover all bases?
I?ve attached a revised version with these suggested amendments (though not on point 4 above - re narrowing the scope - at this stage). Fire away all!
Cheers
Joy
From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 12:01 p.m.
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; Robin Gross
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP

Sorry this was done in a bit of a hurry - can folks please comment on the attached? I'm in airports tomorrow morning and get on a plane for Asia around noon EST, so either someone else takes over the drafting pen if this is too far from what you had in mind and takes charge of sending it in, or if you can let me know ASAP, I can send it in either as-is or with just a bit of tinkering.

Thanks,
Mary




Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
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:

Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>

To:

<pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>

Date:

11/8/2011 5:53 PM

Subject:

[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9 November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC



Begin forwarded message:

From: Glen de Saint G*ry <Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
Date: November 8, 2011 2:46:50 PM PST
To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9 November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC

Dear Councillors,
Reports, motions  and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.Wednesday, 9 November 2011) of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 November, 2011 at 20:00 UTC.

If you have reports for consideration, please send them directly to me at GNSO.Secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:GNSO.Secretariat at gnso.icann.org> so that they can be forwarded to the Council. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list.

Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
Glen
Glen de Saint G*ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
http://gnso.icann.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<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>







From wendy  Wed Nov  9 18:35:39 2011
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:35:39 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP
In-Reply-To: <4EBA42A60200005B0007F08C@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <4EBA42A60200005B0007F08C@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <4EBAABDB.9050604@seltzer.com>

Let's please coordinate this with Jeff and the registries, since he'd
mentioned sponsoring a motion.

--Wendy

On 11/09/2011 09:06 AM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
> Thanks, Joy and KK. A couple of observations:
> 
> - the original reference to 2 UDRP sessions in Singapore was taken from the Report. I assume the 2nd session it refers to is the GNSO weekend working session where there was an update and discussion that was open to the community. I think we should leave it as two and not change it to one.
> 
> - the mention of the UDRP being the oldest policy that has not been reviewed, while true, doesn't seem to fit within the Whereas clause which mentions diversity of viewpoints. I can try to fit it in somewhere else, perhaps in one of the following whereas clauses which argues for doing the PDP, if you want it stated.
> 
> With those changes, I can send it to the Council unless someone else has comments. At this stage, it may be easier to put your comment in an email rather than revise the draft as it may be difficult for me to know whose is the more recent if several people start revising at the same time. Thanks!
> 
> I'm online for the next couple of hours and then get on a 17+ hour flight :-) 
> 
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
> 
> "Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>" <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks Mary and Joy for holding the drafting pen on this. I am attaching the latest version of the motion, with a couple of additions. I like Joy?s suggestions below ? just a couple of points:
> 
> ?         In relation to the resolutions and areas of focus ? I wonder if this casts the net too widely? By suggesting a focus on process and  substance and multiple working groups the risk is (even supposing the motion is successful) that the task is too big. Perhaps a smaller more tightly focused piece of work would have more chance of getting traction and be more difficult to argue against?
> This is a valid point and I totally agree with it. Although there are various issues concerning the substance of the UDRP, it might be wise to initiate a PDP on the process of the UDRP and then continue with the substance. This way we have a two-stage approach, which is more organized and we can say that it won?t create as many problems. I remember that the IPC was particularly concerned with changing the substance (although they also had issues with the process), so this might be a compromise.
> 
> ?         I like (3) ? phasing the work, but could this also be narrowed to make it more manageable, for example: focusing initially on certain types of disputes (such as only those related to ccTLDs) or certain parts of the process
> Again great suggestion Joy. One thing ? the UDRP is mainly focusing on the gTLDs (although it has been implemented by ccTLD operators and Registries). So, we can suggest that initially we would like to focus on those disputes concerning free speech (mainly paragraph 4(c)(iii)) and the way this provision is interpreted. Another one is the bad faith registration AND use, which is interpreted by some panels as bad faith registration OR use ? going against the policy itself.
> Can someone please make sure that this motion is sent to Glen?
> 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: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat
> Sent: ???????, 9 ????????? 2011 2:49 ??
> To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; 'Robin Gross'
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP
> 
> Thanks Mary for this draft ? great job. Some quick thoughts and suggested amendments in the attached (mindful of my newness to this area and the labyrinth of ICANN process related rules?.):
> 
> ?         How specific does the resolution need to be? Would it be enough to have resolution 1 (ie the first para starting ?RESOVLED?) and in RESOLVED 2 simply request the drafting team to submit the working group charter to the GNSO for approval at its next meeting?
> 
> ?         The preamble could be strengthened by taking (1) ? (3) in the RESOLVED 2 para and putting it in the preamble ? giving a nod to the concerns in the ICANN staff report, but stating that these are manageable, without bogging down the resolution with that detail
> 
> ?         In relation to the resolutions and areas of focus ? I wonder if this casts the net too widely? By suggesting a focus on process and  substance and multiple working groups the risk is (even supposing the motion is successful) that the task is too big. Perhaps a smaller more tightly focused piece of work would have more chance of getting traction and be more difficult to argue against?
> 
> ?         I like (3) ? phasing the work, but could this also be narrowed to make it more manageable, for example: focusing initially on certain types of disputes (such as only those related to ccTLDs) or certain parts of the process
> 
> ?         Does RESOLVED 3 need ?and such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate? added ? to cover all bases?
> I?ve attached a revised version with these suggested amendments (though not on point 4 above - re narrowing the scope - at this stage). Fire away all!
> Cheers
> Joy
> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 12:01 p.m.
> To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; Robin Gross
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP
> 
> Sorry this was done in a bit of a hurry - can folks please comment on the attached? I'm in airports tomorrow morning and get on a plane for Asia around noon EST, so either someone else takes over the drafting pen if this is too far from what you had in mind and takes charge of sending it in, or if you can let me know ASAP, I can send it in either as-is or with just a bit of tinkering.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> 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:
> 
> Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
> 
> To:
> 
> <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
> 
> Date:
> 
> 11/8/2011 5:53 PM
> 
> Subject:
> 
> [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9 November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC
> 
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Glen de Saint G*ry <Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
> Date: November 8, 2011 2:46:50 PM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>>
> Subject: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9 November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC
> 
> Dear Councillors,
> Reports, motions  and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.Wednesday, 9 November 2011) of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 November, 2011 at 20:00 UTC.
> 
> If you have reports for consideration, please send them directly to me at GNSO.Secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:GNSO.Secretariat at gnso.icann.org> so that they can be forwarded to the Council. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list.
> 
> Thank you very much.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
> Glen de Saint G*ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> http://gnso.icann.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<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


-- 
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://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/



From Mary.Wong  Wed Nov  9 18:50:03 2011
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:50:03 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP
Message-ID: <4EBA68F40200005B0007F123@smtp.law.unh.edu>

I sent Jeff our draft and he's okay with us sending to Council, as he will his. We'll then have discussions on the list before the meeting, I guess - if we end up with something different that we agree on or if Jeff's motion is something folks can accept, possibly with a friendly amendments or two, I don't mind withdrawing ours if the PC thinks that the way to go :-) 

Sending to Council now as I have to get to the gate to board very soon and will be out of comms range for the next 20 hours or so :(

"Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>" <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:


Let's please coordinate this with Jeff and the registries, since he'd
mentioned sponsoring a motion.

--Wendy

On 11/09/2011 09:06 AM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
> Thanks, Joy and KK. A couple of observations:
> 
> - the original reference to 2 UDRP sessions in Singapore was taken from the Report. I assume the 2nd session it refers to is the GNSO weekend working session where there was an update and discussion that was open to the community. I think we should leave it as two and not change it to one.
> 
> - the mention of the UDRP being the oldest policy that has not been reviewed, while true, doesn't seem to fit within the Whereas clause which mentions diversity of viewpoints. I can try to fit it in somewhere else, perhaps in one of the following whereas clauses which argues for doing the PDP, if you want it stated.
> 
> With those changes, I can send it to the Council unless someone else has comments. At this stage, it may be easier to put your comment in an email rather than revise the draft as it may be difficult for me to know whose is the more recent if several people start revising at the same time. Thanks!
> 
> I'm online for the next couple of hours and then get on a 17+ hour flight :-) 
> 
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
> 
> "Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>" <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks Mary and Joy for holding the drafting pen on this. I am attaching the latest version of the motion, with a couple of additions. I like Joy?s suggestions below ? just a couple of points:
> 
> ?         In relation to the resolutions and areas of focus ? I wonder if this casts the net too widely? By suggesting a focus on process and  substance and multiple working groups the risk is (even supposing the motion is successful) that the task is too big. Perhaps a smaller more tightly focused piece of work would have more chance of getting traction and be more difficult to argue against?
> This is a valid point and I totally agree with it. Although there are various issues concerning the substance of the UDRP, it might be wise to initiate a PDP on the process of the UDRP and then continue with the substance. This way we have a two-stage approach, which is more organized and we can say that it won?t create as many problems. I remember that the IPC was particularly concerned with changing the substance (although they also had issues with the process), so this might be a compromise.
> 
> ?         I like (3) ? phasing the work, but could this also be narrowed to make it more manageable, for example: focusing initially on certain types of disputes (such as only those related to ccTLDs) or certain parts of the process
> Again great suggestion Joy. One thing ? the UDRP is mainly focusing on the gTLDs (although it has been implemented by ccTLD operators and Registries). So, we can suggest that initially we would like to focus on those disputes concerning free speech (mainly paragraph 4(c)(iii)) and the way this provision is interpreted. Another one is the bad faith registration AND use, which is interpreted by some panels as bad faith registration OR use ? going against the policy itself.
> Can someone please make sure that this motion is sent to Glen?
> 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: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat
> Sent: ???????, 9 ????????? 2011 2:49 ??
> To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; 'Robin Gross'
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP
> 
> Thanks Mary for this draft ? great job. Some quick thoughts and suggested amendments in the attached (mindful of my newness to this area and the labyrinth of ICANN process related rules?.):
> 
> ?         How specific does the resolution need to be? Would it be enough to have resolution 1 (ie the first para starting ?RESOVLED?) and in RESOLVED 2 simply request the drafting team to submit the working group charter to the GNSO for approval at its next meeting?
> 
> ?         The preamble could be strengthened by taking (1) ? (3) in the RESOLVED 2 para and putting it in the preamble ? giving a nod to the concerns in the ICANN staff report, but stating that these are manageable, without bogging down the resolution with that detail
> 
> ?         In relation to the resolutions and areas of focus ? I wonder if this casts the net too widely? By suggesting a focus on process and  substance and multiple working groups the risk is (even supposing the motion is successful) that the task is too big. Perhaps a smaller more tightly focused piece of work would have more chance of getting traction and be more difficult to argue against?
> 
> ?         I like (3) ? phasing the work, but could this also be narrowed to make it more manageable, for example: focusing initially on certain types of disputes (such as only those related to ccTLDs) or certain parts of the process
> 
> ?         Does RESOLVED 3 need ?and such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate? added ? to cover all bases?
> I?ve attached a revised version with these suggested amendments (though not on point 4 above - re narrowing the scope - at this stage). Fire away all!
> Cheers
> Joy
> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 12:01 p.m.
> To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; Robin Gross
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Draft motion on UDRP
> 
> Sorry this was done in a bit of a hurry - can folks please comment on the attached? I'm in airports tomorrow morning and get on a plane for Asia around noon EST, so either someone else takes over the drafting pen if this is too far from what you had in mind and takes charge of sending it in, or if you can let me know ASAP, I can send it in either as-is or with just a bit of tinkering.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> 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:
> 
> Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
> 
> To:
> 
> <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
> 
> Date:
> 
> 11/8/2011 5:53 PM
> 
> Subject:
> 
> [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9 November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC
> 
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Glen de Saint G*ry <Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
> Date: November 8, 2011 2:46:50 PM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>>
> Subject: [liaison6c] TR: Document and motion Deadline 9 November for GNSO Council meeting on 17 Novembre at 20:00 UTC
> 
> Dear Councillors,
> Reports, motions  and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.Wednesday, 9 November 2011) of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 November, 2011 at 20:00 UTC.
> 
> If you have reports for consideration, please send them directly to me at GNSO.Secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:GNSO.Secretariat at gnso.icann.org> so that they can be forwarded to the Council. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list.
> 
> Thank you very much.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
> Glen de Saint G*ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> http://gnso.icann.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<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


-- 
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://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/




From robin  Wed Nov  9 20:24:50 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:24:50 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] FYI:  Jeff's other UDRP motion
Message-ID: <E8986022-9046-4492-8508-1AC9DFB7B0C4@ipjustice.org>

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12405.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index    
[council] Competiting Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP

To: GNSO Council <council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Competiting Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:33:24 -0500
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
List-id: council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcyfBa7dRuqtX3L4QkaFy3uvkUr2DA==
Thread-topic: Competiting Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP
I know that Mary has submitted a motion on the UDRP, but I ask that this one be 
submitted and voted upon in the event that Mary's motion fails.  I am not 
pre-supposing it will, but here is a motion just in case.

This is in line with the discussions we all had in Dakar about delaying a PDP 
on the UDRP for 18 months after the first delegation, but still addressing the 
transfer issue now.  There are some links that need to be inserted.

Thanks.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report 
the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), 
recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both 
(a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any 
insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the 
definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs 
to be reviewed or updated, and

Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in 
accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working 
Group [LINK], and

Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and 
series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow 
for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations 
contained therein, and

Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which 
ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the "perspective of the 
majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory 
Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee" and that "a PDP be 
delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been 
in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to 
be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled 
on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting."

RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment 
of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group 
concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, 
which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to 
consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the 
Current State of the UDRP.


RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the 
current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing 
and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be 
delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following 
the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD.


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman at xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman at xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111109/842d67b1/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Nov  9 22:40:38 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:40:38 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft discussion agenda for 16 Nov NCSG Open Policy Call
	(16:00 - 18:00 UTC)
Message-ID: <13D6CED9-9994-45ED-B9C6-AABB712FD2F3@ipjustice.org>

Dear NCSG Policy Committee:

Below is a draft discussion agenda for next week's NCSG Open Policy Meeting.  Note that we will spend roughly the first hour in an open discussion on the most important substantive policy issues for us in the coming months.    Also note, that I've asked the veteran councilors who will be on the call to lead the discussion for one item on the agenda.  And I'd like to get the membership thinking about candidates for the Nominating Committee and contributions to the NomComm, so I've asked Maria to give the overview of that agenda item.

Please let me know if you have any thoughts or suggestions on this agenda for next week's meeting.

Thank you!
Robin


NCSG Open Policy Meeting
16 November 2011
16:00 - 18:00 UTC

Draft Discussion Agenda

1.  Most Important Substantive Policy Issues for Noncommercial Users in Coming Months
     (Wendy) 16:00 - 17:00

2.  GNSO Counsel Meeting (17 Nov) Agenda Issues & Motions for Vote
     (Bill) 17:00 - 17:20

3.  GNSO Counsel Working Groups & Pending Projects List
     (Mary) 17:20 - 17:35

4.  Nominating Committee Discussion 
      (Maria) 17:35 - 17:50

5.  NCSG Financial & Membership Committees in Need of Volunteers
     (Robin) 17:50 - 18:00

AOB


Telephone Conference Dial-in Details & Passcode:
   http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm

NCSG Meetings Page:
  https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Meetings

NCSG Policy Issues Page:
  https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Policy+Issues



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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111109/44b1d4ca/attachment.html>


From joy  Thu Nov 10 00:31:47 2011
From: joy (Joy Liddicoat)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:31:47 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination
In-Reply-To: <D8B87832BDC13F45B7265357FCF323C30167B398E374@E2K7-MS2.ds.strath.ac.uk>
References: <CAD9D3E6.113B5%lesley@nominet.org.uk>	<6B58F38A-C8AC-4E6B-847E-1824821D74A8@indom.com>
	<009101cc9e8e$0e9ac370$2bd04a50$@apc.org>
	<D8B87832BDC13F45B7265357FCF323C30167B398E374@E2K7-MS2.ds.strath.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <010901cc9f2f$649c83c0$2dd58b40$@apc.org>

Thanks for that feedback K, I?ll post a message on the members list asking for view

Joy

 

From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2011 2:54 a.m.
To: 'Joy Liddicoat'; pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: RE: [PC-NCSG] FW: [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination

 

Thanks for this suggestion Joy. I would support raising this issue to the list and I know that many of our members are interested in this issue. and, it certainly raises various concerns both in the context of gTLDs and ccTLDs.

 

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

 

From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat
Sent: ???????, 9 ????????? 2011 3:17 ??
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination

 

Hi ? just pondering this and the NCSG list discussions and wondering whether the issue of domain name takedown might be a good one to suggest for joint ccNSO GNSO work ? esp given the recent Verisign episode, it is not just a ccTLD issue. Lots of differences between the two but real issues in terms of the rights of registrants that would echo across both and likely to be of increasing focus ?.. 

Worth raising with members?

Joy

 

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of St?phane Van Gelder
Sent: Monday, 7 November 2011 11:56 p.m.
To: GNSO Council
Cc: Lesley Cowley
Subject: [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination

 

Councillors,

 

Please see the email from Leslie Cowley below.

 

As Wolf has kindly volunteered to lead our agenda organizational efforts for Costa Rica, I have indicated to Leslie that he would be the main contact person for the ccNSO in this effort.

 

I also wanted to make sure the Council was aware of these initiatives to strengthen the cooperation between the ccNSO and us. Judging from our recent joint meeting conversations, this is clearly something that both SOs find useful so it's great that this is being worked on.

 

Please contact Wolf or myself if you have any suggestions or comments on our interactions with the ccNSO.

 

Thanks,

 

St?phane

 

 

 

D?but du message r?exp?di? :

 

De : Lesley Cowley <lesley at nominet.org.uk>

Objet : ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination

Date : 4 novembre 2011 18:39:50 HNEC

? : St?phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>

Cc : Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer at sidn.nl>, Juselius Juhani <juhani.juselius at ficora.fi>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org>, Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek at icann.org>

 

Hi Stephane,

 

As briefly mentioned at our last joint meeting, we would like to enhance our meeting co-ordination. The ccNSO Council has therefore resolved to appoint two volunteer Councillors, who will take over our part of the organisation of our joint sessions from the ccNSO Chair, with a view to ensuring the sessions remain interesting, well-planned and a good use of all of our Councillors precious time. From the ccNSO Secretariat, Bart will provide support and Gabi will organise ccNSO logistics.

 

If you could kindly advise who from the GNSO the team could work with that would be appreciated, I very much hope that the GNSO will consider making similar arrangements to assist with your heavy load as Chair.

 

Kind regards,

 

Lesley

 

Lesley Cowley, OBE

CEO

Nominet

Minerva House

Edmund Halley Road

Oxford Science Park

Oxford, OX4 4DQ

UK

 

Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211

http://www.nominet.org.uk/

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111110/9c2479de/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Nov 10 16:53:54 2011
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:53:54 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination
In-Reply-To: <010901cc9f2f$649c83c0$2dd58b40$@apc.org>
References: <CAD9D3E6.113B5%lesley@nominet.org.uk>
	<6B58F38A-C8AC-4E6B-847E-1824821D74A8@indom.com>
	<009101cc9e8e$0e9ac370$2bd04a50$@apc.org>
	<D8B87832BDC13F45B7265357FCF323C30167B398E374@E2K7-MS2.ds.strath.ac.uk>
	<010901cc9f2f$649c83c0$2dd58b40$@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn99rOjCwh07A--ekU0DhjZ1pkGofhNxaLMK4f3VPHvbQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Joy,

Honestly I dont expect so much from them, during the several joint meeting
with ccnso, I never see noticeable interest or enthusiasm from their side
except about ICANN budget topic (I also remember that they didn't care so
much about support to give to needy applicants  except few ccTLD registries
during the meeting in Singapore) . But we can push them anyway and try to
avoid the politically correct :)

Rafik

Le jeudi 10 novembre 2011, Joy Liddicoat <joy at apc.org> a ?crit :
> Thanks for that feedback K, I?ll post a message on the members list
asking for view
>
> Joy
>
>
>
> From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2011 2:54 a.m.
> To: 'Joy Liddicoat'; pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Subject: RE: [PC-NCSG] FW: [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination
>
>
>
> Thanks for this suggestion Joy. I would support raising this issue to the
list and I know that many of our members are interested in this issue. and,
it certainly raises various concerns both in the context of gTLDs and
ccTLDs.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org]
On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat
> Sent: ???????, 9 ????????? 2011 3:17 ??
> To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination
>
>
>
> Hi ? just pondering this and the NCSG list discussions and wondering
whether the issue of domain name takedown might be a good one to suggest
for joint ccNSO GNSO work ? esp given th

-- 
Rafik Dammak
Twitter: @rafik
Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111110/2d469a11/attachment.html>


From joy  Thu Nov 10 22:51:51 2011
From: joy (Joy Liddicoat)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:51:51 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThn99rOjCwh07A--ekU0DhjZ1pkGofhNxaLMK4f3VPHvbQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD9D3E6.113B5%lesley@nominet.org.uk>	<6B58F38A-C8AC-4E6B-847E-1824821D74A8@indom.com>	<009101cc9e8e$0e9ac370$2bd04a50$@apc.org>	<D8B87832BDC13F45B7265357FCF323C30167B398E374@E2K7-MS2.ds.strath.ac.uk>	<010901cc9f2f$649c83c0$2dd58b40$@apc.org>
	<CAH5sThn99rOjCwh07A--ekU0DhjZ1pkGofhNxaLMK4f3VPHvbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00df01cc9fea$959d9d40$c0d8d7c0$@apc.org>

Thanks Rafik: my expectations also low, but hopes a little higher :) in any event, coming up with plausible topics of mutual interest at least shows we are willing to engage 

J

 

From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 3:54 a.m.
To: Joy Liddicoat
Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis; pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination

 

Hi Joy,

Honestly I dont expect so much from them, during the several joint meeting with ccnso, I never see noticeable interest or enthusiasm from their side except about ICANN budget topic (I also remember that they didn't care so much about support to give to needy applicants  except few ccTLD registries during the meeting in Singapore) . But we can push them anyway and try to avoid the politically correct :)

Rafik

Le jeudi 10 novembre 2011, Joy Liddicoat <joy at apc.org> a ?crit :
> Thanks for that feedback K, I?ll post a message on the members list asking for view
>
> Joy
>
>  
>
> From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2011 2:54 a.m.
> To: 'Joy Liddicoat'; pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Subject: RE: [PC-NCSG] FW: [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination
>
>  
>
> Thanks for this suggestion Joy. I would support raising this issue to the list and I know that many of our members are interested in this issue. and, it certainly raises various concerns both in the context of gTLDs and ccTLDs.
>
>  
>
> 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
>
>  
>
> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat
> Sent: ???????, 9 ????????? 2011 3:17 ??
> To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: [council] Fwd: ccNSO-GNSO Meeting Co-Ordination
>
>  
>
> Hi ? just pondering this and the NCSG list discussions and wondering whether the issue of domain name takedown might be a good one to suggest for joint ccNSO GNSO work ? esp given th

-- 

Rafik Dammak

Twitter: @rafik

Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111111/569051dd/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Thu Nov 17 10:59:44 2011
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:59:44 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] UDRP motion
In-Reply-To: <02ad01cca4c8$80ff4810$82fdd830$@apc.org>
References: <D8B87832BDC13F45B7265357FCF323C30167B398E3C5@E2K7-MS2.ds.strath.ac.uk>
	<02ad01cca4c8$80ff4810$82fdd830$@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CF9C87F8-78B8-4479-94D4-579D84BB1817@uzh.ch>

Good morning,

Moving this to the PC list.  We should discuss motions etc there, archived & more inclusive etc.

I believe Wendy said on Skype that Rgy has vote counted, I presume for Jeff's alternate.  Don't know if that means they intend to vote against Mary's, have not had my ear to the ground on this one and wasn't in Dakar.  Some background from folks who were would help.  In submitting his, Jeff said on Council that it was in line with a discussion in " Dakar about delaying a PDP on the UDRP for 18 months after the first delegation, but still addressing the transfer issue now."  Why do they want to delay, and why just this one issue?

I return to the question posed last night, if Mary's goes down and we are unable to amend, would we accept Jeff's as is?  Or only if we can amend, i.e. is it better to go down in flames on principle, as with the RAA transparency votes in the past? 

On Joy's comments,

On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:30 AM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:

> JL: this reads like a ?let?s start with clause? because it limits the scope to one issue (domain name locking) so that it can be taken up in the wider consideration of the UDRP (assuming the latter happens). If the GNSO did agree to a wider review ? would this be a good issue to start with?

If we settle for just locking, might this take the steam out of any effort to get a broader review?  Or are we confident the latter would follow?
>  
> 
> RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD.
> 
> JL: The more I looked at this the more I wasn?t sure what this meant?.For example which rights? And which rights protection mechanisms? Would it include rights to free speech, freedom of association, and equality ? the criminal prosecution in Lebanon of the registrants of www.gaylebanon.org for example. Or is it only some rights eg intellectual property rights?
> 

I have to assume it's just IPR.  Human rights?  Joy this is a term and concern that I've never heard raised in Council.

> Bill raised a very important point I think: Jeff?s motion recommends the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a WG on recommendation 7 of the IRTP Part B WG?.
> Mary on the other hand said that a PDP and a WG should be specifically created for the UDRP.
>  
> We need to push for Mary?s suggestion if her motion fails. The UDRP should not be a subsequent issue for a WG ? a WG should be dedicated to this issue. now, for any other substantive issues, I would also suggest we task the WG to focus first on procedural issues and then on substantive. We will definitely get more support on if we follow this route?.
>  
> JL: Agreed: If Mary?s resolution fails, I would suggest the following friendly amendment that would establish the review, start with the WG looking at Rec #7, and call for a report on the overall UDRP review 18 months after the launch of the new gTLDs:
> 
> RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on the UDRP,
> 
> RESOLVED that the Working Group commence with consideration of recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.
> 
> RESOLVED, further, the GNSO Council requests a new Issue Report on the UDRP Review be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD.
> 

So then we're basically offering Mary's (presumably defeated) motion as an amendment to Jeff's that was designed as an alternative.  Seems unlikely to carry the day, no?

I will be offline much of the day and in the hours prior to the call, thing at the US mission here, so it would help me a lot if you lawyer types who follow UDRP more closely could pow wow and provide some guidance on how to proceed once the call starts!

Thanks,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111117/449ed7d7/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Thu Nov 17 11:22:33 2011
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:22:33 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Outreach motion
In-Reply-To: <20111116105335.a9a203d782c20324abd21efa41e2a5a6.d7023b2243.wbe@email14.secureserver.net>
References: <20111116105335.a9a203d782c20324abd21efa41e2a5a6.d7023b2243.wbe@email14.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <E7995E1A-263C-4825-900C-0AAA6724AADC@uzh.ch>

Hi again,

Copying MM as he raised related concerns on the members list.

So, you will have seen John's message on Council backing away from the outreach motion, which we agreed merits support.

On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:53 PM, <john at crediblecontext.com> <john at crediblecontext.com> wrote:

> The BC's concerns are based on its current position that "We prefer that
> support provided is featured as support to the constituency/SG, rather
> than centralized in permanent ICANN staff?" 
> 
> The charter's call to "consolidate human and financial resources
> relating to GNSO outreach" falls well short of recognizing the
> importance of each constituencies' role on the front lines of expanding
> this multi-stakeholder, consensus-driven, bottom-up organization. And
> the charter also seems to mandate participation of groups (e.g., ALAC)
> that are outside the scope of the Council's role.
> 
> Even if consolidation and central command-and-control are ultimately the
> best way to go, we need to begin by knowing more than we do

Wow, central command-and-control sounds scary!  Interesting that CSG decides to raise this now rather than during the extended outreach drafting exercise.  Amber suggested on the call that this may be a Cade thing, which casts the proposal received from CSG about the funding to SG/constituencies in a new light.  MM may be right that's a bit of empire building.  Hard to know how they arrived at this, no discussion on their list http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/ (although support there for UDRP status quo).

To me, there's no contradiction between SG/constituencies doing outreach and there being a focused locus for coordination and oversight at the community level, and personally I'd be happy if there were more dedicated staff resources and coherent monitoring re: outreach.  I think it'd be in our interest that there be some transparency and collective engagement rather than just handing CSG a pot of money and saying you guys go off and do what you want.  The point is to expand engagement in ICANN, not to build little empires.

So I at least will support the plan that Olga and others worked on with community input for months, rather than CSG's 11th hour 360 turn. 

Thoughts?

Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111117/793c7580/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Thu Nov 17 12:43:43 2011
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:43:43 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: UDRP motion
References: <4EC4836D0200005B0007F796@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <CA927C14-503E-4602-B240-582E498E7C02@uzh.ch>

resending for Mary who says she is unable to

Begin forwarded message:

> From: <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>
> Date: November 17, 2011 9:45:23 AM GMT+01:00
> To: <joy at apc.org>, <wendy at seltzer.com>, <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>
> Cc: <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Subject: RE: UDRP motion
> 
> Hi Joy,
> 
> I think that we might try to use the first Resolved in Jeff's motion (on IRTP rec 7) as a reason why a phased PDP with the scoping-out by the DT recommended in my motion makes sense. 
> 
> As for rights protection mechanisms, I think Jeff is referring to the RPMs mandated for the new gTLD program w.r.t. trademark protection, I.e. the TM Clearinghouse, TM Claims Service and URS mechanism.
> 
> My main problem with Jeff's motion is that a new Issue Report has to be done 18 months after the first RPM launch in the new gTLD program. That means no work will be done at all on any aspect of the UDRP, except possibly just the IRTP lock issue, for at least another 2-3 years from now, even though many admit the UDRP currently has flaws, some of which are procedural fixes.
> 
> Even at that point, I don't see how a PDP can NOT be phased and sub-Teams formed. That's why I thought one tack we can take now is to launch a PDP on the explicit understanding that we may not get to the meat and bones of the UDRP till it's time to review the URS, with the task of scoping things out and recommending time lines given to a drafting team formed for that specific task.
> 
> That's the point I hope to make on the call, anyway - hopefully you all can echo and add, if you agree. Btw I will be calling from an airport so there's a slight chance I may not be on Skype or adobe. If worst comes to the worst and i drop off the call, hopefully someone can make that point for me!
> 
> Oh and my motion still needs a second :-) 
> 
> What are we going to do about Berard's points made on behalf of the BC for the outreach motion?
> 
> Joy Liddicoat <joy at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all ? a comment on this below.
> 
> Joy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Thursday, 17 November 2011 6:47 a.m.
> To: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU; Wendy Seltzer (wendy at seltzer.com); Joy Liddicoat
> (joy at apc.org)
> Cc: William Drake (william.drake at uzh.ch); Rafik Dammak
> (rafik.dammak at gmail.com); Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
> (wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de)
> Subject: UDRP motion
> 
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> 
> 
> The UDRP motions look as follows now:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. PROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP  
> 
> Made by: Mary Wong
> 
> Seconded by:   
> 
>     WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution
> requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute
> Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1)
> how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any
> insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the
> definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language
> needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP
> on this issue might be managed; 
> 
>     WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and
> released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24
> community comments were received; 
> 
>     WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by
> various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar
> conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st
> ICANN meeting in Singapore; 
> 
>     WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community
> comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and
> published on 3 October 2011; 
> 
>     WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among
> the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the
> advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new
> rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g.
> the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the
> UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and
> streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to
> launch a PDP or form an experts? panel, and whether more formal
> accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable; 
> 
>     WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to
> this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to
> address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as:
> (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch
> of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other
> issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any
> process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of
> Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and
> timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including
> possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if
> appropriate; 
> 
>     WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be
> reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or
> correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were
> identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the
> Final Issue Report; and 
> 
>     WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may
> not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs,
> and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is
> likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources; 
> 
>     Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP
> on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review; 
> 
>     RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and
> charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take
> into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work
> phasing; and 
> 
>     RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically
> task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and
> recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR)
> PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations
> to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2)
> recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council
> at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes
> up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP;
> and (3) such  other similar issues and recommendations as it considers
> appropriate. 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> 3. Competiting Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP
> 
> Made by: Jeff Neuman
> 
> Seconded by: 
> 
> Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final
> report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see
> <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf>
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf),
> recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering
> both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date,
> and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b)
> Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP
> language needs to be reviewed or updated, and 
> 
> Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in
> accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies
> Working Group [LINK], and 
> 
> Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and
> series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to
> allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and
> recommendations contained therein, and 
> 
> Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in
> which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the ?perspective of
> the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government
> Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee? and that ?a
> PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System
> (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the
> policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the
> URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of
> cybersquatting.? 
> 
> RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the
> establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B
> Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to
> UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011
> received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final
> Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.
> 
> JL: this reads like a ?let?s start with clause? because it limits the scope
> to one issue (domain name locking) so that it can be taken up in the wider
> consideration of the UDRP (assuming the latter happens). If the GNSO did
> agree to a wider review ? would this be a good issue to start with?
> 
> 
> 
> RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the
> current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both
> existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS,
> should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18)
> months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD.
> 
> JL: The more I looked at this the more I wasn?t sure what this meant?.For
> example which rights? And which rights protection mechanisms? Would it
> include rights to free speech, freedom of association, and equality ? the
> criminal prosecution in Lebanon of the registrants of www.gaylebanon.org
> for example. Or is it only some rights eg intellectual property rights? 
> 
> Bill raised a very important point I think: Jeff?s motion recommends the
> initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a WG on recommendation 7 of the
> IRTP Part B WG?.
> 
> Mary on the other hand said that a PDP and a WG should be specifically
> created for the UDRP.
> 
> 
> 
> We need to push for Mary?s suggestion if her motion fails. The UDRP should
> not be a subsequent issue for a WG ? a WG should be dedicated to this issue.
> now, for any other substantive issues, I would also suggest we task the WG
> to focus first on procedural issues and then on substantive. We will
> definitely get more support on if we follow this route?.
> 
> 
> 
> JL: Agreed: If Mary?s resolution fails, I would suggest the following
> friendly amendment that would establish the review, start with the WG
> looking at Rec #7, and call for a report on the overall UDRP review 18
> months after the launch of the new gTLDs:
> 
> RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the
> establishment of a Working Group on the UDRP,
> 
> RESOLVED that the Working Group commence with consideration of
> recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the
> requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the
> GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider
> when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current
> State of the UDRP.
> 
> RESOLVED, further, the GNSO Council requests a new Issue Report on the UDRP
> Review be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18)
> months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please liaise between you and decide which way you want to go?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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-Regulat
> ion-isbn9780415477765
> 
> Selected publications:
> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
> 
> Website: www.komaitis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111117/d7bb3afb/attachment-0001.html>


From k.komaitis  Thu Nov 17 17:20:26 2011
From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:20:26 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Outreach motion
In-Reply-To: <E7995E1A-263C-4825-900C-0AAA6724AADC@uzh.ch>
References: <20111116105335.a9a203d782c20324abd21efa41e2a5a6.d7023b2243.wbe@email14.secureserver.net>
	<E7995E1A-263C-4825-900C-0AAA6724AADC@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <D8B87832BDC13F45B7265357FCF323C30167B398E3D6@E2K7-MS2.ds.strath.ac.uk>

The only thing I can say to this is that I heard in Dakar - only heard - that the Business folks would not support this exactly because of MC's initiative...they want to promote this funding thing through outreach....but all that is unverified, although it doesn't surprise me that they backed up....

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: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: ??????, 17 ????????? 2011 9:23 ??
To: NCSG-Policy
Cc: Mueller, Milton
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Outreach motion

Hi again,

Copying MM as he raised related concerns on the members list.

So, you will have seen John's message on Council backing away from the outreach motion, which we agreed merits support.

On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:53 PM, <john at crediblecontext.com<mailto:john at crediblecontext.com>> <john at crediblecontext.com<mailto:john at crediblecontext.com>> wrote:


The BC's concerns are based on its current position that "We prefer that
support provided is featured as support to the constituency/SG, rather
than centralized in permanent ICANN staff..."

The charter's call to "consolidate human and financial resources
relating to GNSO outreach" falls well short of recognizing the
importance of each constituencies' role on the front lines of expanding
this multi-stakeholder, consensus-driven, bottom-up organization. And
the charter also seems to mandate participation of groups (e.g., ALAC)
that are outside the scope of the Council's role.

Even if consolidation and central command-and-control are ultimately the
best way to go, we need to begin by knowing more than we do

Wow, central command-and-control sounds scary!  Interesting that CSG decides to raise this now rather than during the extended outreach drafting exercise.  Amber suggested on the call that this may be a Cade thing, which casts the proposal received from CSG about the funding to SG/constituencies in a new light.  MM may be right that's a bit of empire building.  Hard to know how they arrived at this, no discussion on their list http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/ (although support there for UDRP status quo).

To me, there's no contradiction between SG/constituencies doing outreach and there being a focused locus for coordination and oversight at the community level, and personally I'd be happy if there were more dedicated staff resources and coherent monitoring re: outreach.  I think it'd be in our interest that there be some transparency and collective engagement rather than just handing CSG a pot of money and saying you guys go off and do what you want.  The point is to expand engagement in ICANN, not to build little empires.

So I at least will support the plan that Olga and others worked on with community input for months, rather than CSG's 11th hour 360 turn.

Thoughts?

Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111117/e6b4ea62/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Nov 17 17:44:09 2011
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:44:09 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Outreach motion
In-Reply-To: <D8B87832BDC13F45B7265357FCF323C30167B398E3D6@E2K7-MS2.ds.strath.ac.uk>
References: <20111116105335.a9a203d782c20324abd21efa41e2a5a6.d7023b2243.wbe@email14.secureserver.net>
	<E7995E1A-263C-4825-900C-0AAA6724AADC@uzh.ch>
	<D8B87832BDC13F45B7265357FCF323C30167B398E3D6@E2K7-MS2.ds.strath.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <4E3D8BAE-89A1-464D-9273-3489AF3C0C5B@acm.org>


I heard similar things.
for MC i think this is either or.
but i am not sure that BCor CSG are voting as a block on this.

avri


On 17 Nov 2011, at 10:20, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:

> The only thing I can say to this is that I heard in Dakar ? only heard ? that the Business folks would not support this exactly because of MC?s initiative?they want to promote this funding thing through outreach?.but all that is unverified, although it doesn?t surprise me that they backed up?.
>  
> 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
>  
> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: ??????, 17 ????????? 2011 9:23 ??
> To: NCSG-Policy
> Cc: Mueller, Milton
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Outreach motion
>  
> Hi again,
>  
> Copying MM as he raised related concerns on the members list.
>  
> So, you will have seen John's message on Council backing away from the outreach motion, which we agreed merits support.
>  
> On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:53 PM, <john at crediblecontext.com> <john at crediblecontext.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> The BC's concerns are based on its current position that "We prefer that
> support provided is featured as support to the constituency/SG, rather
> than centralized in permanent ICANN staff?" 
> 
> The charter's call to "consolidate human and financial resources
> relating to GNSO outreach" falls well short of recognizing the
> importance of each constituencies' role on the front lines of expanding
> this multi-stakeholder, consensus-driven, bottom-up organization. And
> the charter also seems to mandate participation of groups (e.g., ALAC)
> that are outside the scope of the Council's role.
> 
> Even if consolidation and central command-and-control are ultimately the
> best way to go, we need to begin by knowing more than we do
>  
> Wow, central command-and-control sounds scary!  Interesting that CSG decides to raise this now rather than during the extended outreach drafting exercise.  Amber suggested on the call that this may be a Cade thing, which casts the proposal received from CSG about the funding to SG/constituencies in a new light.  MM may be right that's a bit of empire building.  Hard to know how they arrived at this, no discussion on their list http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/ (although support there for UDRP status quo).
>  
> To me, there's no contradiction between SG/constituencies doing outreach and there being a focused locus for coordination and oversight at the community level, and personally I'd be happy if there were more dedicated staff resources and coherent monitoring re: outreach.  I think it'd be in our interest that there be some transparency and collective engagement rather than just handing CSG a pot of money and saying you guys go off and do what you want.  The point is to expand engagement in ICANN, not to build little empires.
>  
> So I at least will support the plan that Olga and others worked on with community input for months, rather than CSG's 11th hour 360 turn. 
>  
> Thoughts?
>  
> Bill
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From wendy  Thu Nov 17 21:44:21 2011
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:44:21 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] UDRP motion
In-Reply-To: <CF9C87F8-78B8-4479-94D4-579D84BB1817@uzh.ch>
References: <D8B87832BDC13F45B7265357FCF323C30167B398E3C5@E2K7-MS2.ds.strath.ac.uk>	<02ad01cca4c8$80ff4810$82fdd830$@apc.org>
	<CF9C87F8-78B8-4479-94D4-579D84BB1817@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <4EC56415.3010201@seltzer.com>

On 11/17/2011 03:59 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Good morning,
> 
> Moving this to the PC list.  We should discuss motions etc there, archived & more inclusive etc.
> 
> I believe Wendy said on Skype that Rgy has vote counted, I presume for Jeff's alternate.

I'd presume he has. I don't know one way or the other. Note that the
thresholds are not high.

2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (?PDP?) Within Scope (as
described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of
each House or more than 66% of one House;

I'd imagine that Jeff can get 66% of the CPH for his motion.  Can we get
33% of their house for ours, or for an amendment to theirs?

--Wendy

  Don't know if that means they intend to vote against Mary's, have not
had my ear to the ground on this one and wasn't in Dakar.  Some
background from folks who were would help.  In submitting his, Jeff said
on Council that it was in line with a discussion in " Dakar about
delaying a PDP on the UDRP for 18 months after the first delegation, but
still addressing the transfer issue now."  Why do they want to delay,
and why just this one issue?
> 
> I return to the question posed last night, if Mary's goes down and we are unable to amend, would we accept Jeff's as is?  Or only if we can amend, i.e. is it better to go down in flames on principle, as with the RAA transparency votes in the past? 
> 
> On Joy's comments,
> 
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:30 AM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:
> 
>> JL: this reads like a ?let?s start with clause? because it limits the scope to one issue (domain name locking) so that it can be taken up in the wider consideration of the UDRP (assuming the latter happens). If the GNSO did agree to a wider review ? would this be a good issue to start with?
> 
> If we settle for just locking, might this take the steam out of any effort to get a broader review?  Or are we confident the latter would follow?
>>  
>>
>> RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD.
>>
>> JL: The more I looked at this the more I wasn?t sure what this meant?.For example which rights? And which rights protection mechanisms? Would it include rights to free speech, freedom of association, and equality ? the criminal prosecution in Lebanon of the registrants of www.gaylebanon.org for example. Or is it only some rights eg intellectual property rights?
>>
> 
> I have to assume it's just IPR.  Human rights?  Joy this is a term and concern that I've never heard raised in Council.
> 
>> Bill raised a very important point I think: Jeff?s motion recommends the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a WG on recommendation 7 of the IRTP Part B WG?.
>> Mary on the other hand said that a PDP and a WG should be specifically created for the UDRP.
>>  
>> We need to push for Mary?s suggestion if her motion fails. The UDRP should not be a subsequent issue for a WG ? a WG should be dedicated to this issue. now, for any other substantive issues, I would also suggest we task the WG to focus first on procedural issues and then on substantive. We will definitely get more support on if we follow this route?.
>>  
>> JL: Agreed: If Mary?s resolution fails, I would suggest the following friendly amendment that would establish the review, start with the WG looking at Rec #7, and call for a report on the overall UDRP review 18 months after the launch of the new gTLDs:
>>
>> RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on the UDRP,
>>
>> RESOLVED that the Working Group commence with consideration of recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.
>>
>> RESOLVED, further, the GNSO Council requests a new Issue Report on the UDRP Review be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD.
>>
> 
> So then we're basically offering Mary's (presumably defeated) motion as an amendment to Jeff's that was designed as an alternative.  Seems unlikely to carry the day, no?
> 
> I will be offline much of the day and in the hours prior to the call, thing at the US mission here, so it would help me a lot if you lawyer types who follow UDRP more closely could pow wow and provide some guidance on how to proceed once the call starts!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


-- 
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://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/



From robin  Tue Nov 29 21:55:25 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:55:25 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: "Save the Date" on December 13 for a Briefing of
	SO/AC Leaders on a Draft Framework for Outreach
References: <SNT123-W544BF2D2B25A591750E0DCD3B30@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4A3685E0-D152-41A3-9C31-996D1C3C41FA@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> Date: November 29, 2011 8:40:46 AM PST
> To: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>, Stephane Vangelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
> Cc: Steve Metalitz <met at msk.com>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>, Konstantine Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>, Amber Sterling <asterling at aamc.org>, <gchynoweth at dyn.com>, David Maher <dmaher at pir.org>, Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz at icann.org>, Janice Lange <janice.lange at icann.org>, Chris at Andalucia <chris at andalucia.com>
> Subject: "Save the Date" on December 13 for a Briefing of SO/AC Leaders on a Draft Framework for Outreach
> 
> 
> Dear David
> Thanks for this 'heads up' that you sent regarding a briefing on a draft framework for Outreach. 
> 
>  This topic was referenced by Board members in Dakar. I had asked at that time for the PPs that Kurt Pritz had presented to the Board Committee to be shared with the Chairs of the Constituencies/SGS, and I am pleased to see a step in that direction. However,
> I would strongly recommend that the briefing be moved to next week.  All of us are working on our input on the Budget/Operating Plan, and we have consultation responsibilities, as well as deadlines to meet. 
> 
> The proposed timeline is a bit too close to other deadlines. 
> 
> Can you work with Kurt toward moving the briefing to next week? 
> 
> This sounds like a useful discussion, but we need to realize that the 2013 budget is moving forward, and that most of us have concerns relative to funding of activities that were proposed for 2011 and 2012, and to our regret, ignored, or obscured due to many factors. 
> 
> It is very important to include all of the Chairs within the GNSo's SGs/Constituencies, and of course, to include the GNSO's Council Chair, so that the policy related inputs can also be addressed.  
> 
> I have added in the Vice Chair of Operations/Finance for the BC, who will join me in these discussions. 
> 
> 
> I would also note that it would be important to include the ALAC in this briefing.  Can you try to move it to next week, if at all possible? 
> 
> Marilyn Cade
> BC Chair
> 
> 
> From: david.olive at icann.org
> To: stephane.vangelder at indom.com
> CC: met at msk.com; marilynscade at hotmail.com; tonyarholmes at btinternet.com; robin at ipjustice.org; k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk; asterling at aamc.org;gchynoweth at dyn.com; dmaher at pir.org; kurt.pritz at icann.org; janice.lange at icann.org
> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:11:35 -0800
> Subject: Request to "Save the Date" on December 13 for a Briefing of SO/AC Leaders on a Draft Framework for Outreach
> 
> Stephane (and other GNSO leaders):
> 
> In an effort to improve our management and planning processes, ICANN COO Akron Atallah asked several senior staff members to lead an internal Staff working group to begin building an overall framework for how to define and address the full range of ICANN Outreach activities.  Once created, this framework would serve as a starting point to engage community leaders in a full discussion of Outreach goals and strategies: from definition to activities to validation of budget requests, with the goal being the development and implementation of a collaborative Outreach initiative. 
>  
> An initial draft Outreach framework was shared with the Public Participation Committee in Dakar, and the time has come to begin work with the community on next steps.  We hope that this initiative will work in parallel with the building of the FY 13 Budget and Framework, as there will no doubt be community requests again this year for Outreach programs and activities.
>  
> Kurt Pritz intends to share the staff work so far with the SO/AC leaders in a briefing in mid-December for that purpose.  Please "Save the Date"  of Tuesday, December 13.  We will also work on the best timing for the session.
>  
> A formal request for your attendance will be sent shortly. If someone other than you, the chair, should be in attendance, please let us know that individual and their email address as soon as possible.
> 
> Regards,          David
> 
> 
> David A. Olive
> Vice President, Policy Development Support
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 
> Washington, D.C.    20005
> Office: 202.570.7126      Mobile:  202.341.3611
> 
> 




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111129/c9112819/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Nov 30 05:51:50 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:51:50 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] doodle poll for December NCSG Open Policy Call
Message-ID: <EF9DC97B-F2C7-4DEC-A53C-99F125D62403@ipjustice.org>

Dear Members of NCSG Policy Comte:

Please mark your availability for the DECEMBER 2011 NCSG Open Policy Discussion:
      http://www.doodle.com/224fx5ycz2gzxr56

This monthly discussion is intended to facilitate direct interaction between the NCSG Policy Committee & the entire NCSG membership. All NCSG Policy Comte members & working group participants are expected to attend.  

The NCSG Open Policy Call will be held from 12-14 December, just before the 15 Dec. GNSO Council Meeting.

The December meeting is being scheduled with deference to our members in the Asia-Pacific region, since our last few meetings have been scheduled in the middle of the night for them (and we are trying to share the pain).  :-)

This doodle poll closes on 4 Dec (EoB in CA), so please mark your availability asap. Thank you!

Best,
Robin


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111129/a8574216/attachment.html>