[PC-NCSG] Mark Monitor's counter attack

[Balleste, Roy]

Speaking as an NCSG member (and not in any legal sense), I do not see what is the problem.
We just raised an honest observation, and asked? Now the reaction is explosive, and unnecessarily so.
I invite all to read the NCSG statement.
In the end, I believe, it is now the ICANN Board that will have to examine the matter and decide.

Roy


From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Rudi Vansnick
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 1:48 PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy; <privacy at ipjustice.org>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Mark Monitor's counter attack

+1

I also feel this is a topic where legal advise is required in order to protect NCSG ...
What's the opinion of other NCSG PC members on this ?

I feel we have been put into a position we didn't want to be in.

Rudi Vansnick
NPOC chair Policy Committee
NPOC treasurer
rudi.vansnick at npoc.org<mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
www.npoc.org<http://www.npoc.org>

Op 6-sep.-2013, om 19:39 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>> het volgende geschreven:



Ps.  One reason I am not interested in taking on the challenge myself in a formal sense, is that the issue has risen to the level of legal language.  Beyond my competency.

If we are going to respond, it should be one of the lawyers that crafts the language.

Or perhaps Kathy would want to answer for herself as she seems to be singled out by the counterclaim - though we are all named.

avri


On 6 Sep 2013, at 13:21, Avri Doria wrote:


Hi,

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/input-to-ewg/2013/000024.html

Anyone want to take of the challenge?  A few hours left.

I added a note to a facebook conversation on the issue but am not planning to comment personally to ICANn - will let the NCSG support stand unless the groups decides otherwise.

My comments and comment by Nigel that went before it:


Nigel Roberts


I know and like people on both sides of this spat.

And I take no side -- in no small part because I don't even understand what NCSG appears to have accused MarkMonitor of.

But I will just point out one thing .. rebuttal is a sure way to make sure a large number of people (like me) who would NOT otherwise have seen the original complaints, get to see it.
I think it's called the Streisand Effect!

(I'll go back to sleep now and do my best to convince myself I never saw anything, and can get 10 minutes of my life back)




Avri Doria Good point Nigel, hopefully now everyone will read all of the other points made by Kleinman, Morris et al that were endorsed by the NCSG. Perhaps in insisting people ignore the rest of the comments, they will now see why the TM people would like for our comments to be ignored and will explain the attack the messenger effect.

As I understood the request, it was that the COI issue be addressed. The comment from the lawyers (who are coincidentally the representatives for many IP interests in ICANN) to which the Mark Monitor letter was attached is a start for the response to those COI issues. As transparency is one of the key issues at ICANN, it is good to see COI issues called out, and responded to.

avri


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


_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto: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/20130906/8215ff5b/attachment.html>