[PC-NCSG] Answer to Board question

[matthew shears]

Ed - I like this but wonder if point 2) while important is necessary?  
As this covers "covered parties" won't there be a sufficiency of 
awareness.  1 ask is always better than 2.


On 05/11/2016 15:35, Edward Morris wrote:
> Per the PC meeting today, I would propose asking something akin to:
>
> Section 4.3y of the new ICANN Bylaws reads as follows (the bylaws 
> provision will be on the screen):
>
> (y) ICANN shall seek to establish means by which community, non-profit 
> Claimants and other Claimants that would otherwise be excluded from 
> utilizing the IRP process may meaningfully participate in and have 
> access to the IRP process.
>
>
> Has the Board considered how to implement this provision? If not, how 
> would the Board suggest we proceed so that this important part of the 
> accountability reforms becomes reality. Some ideas the NCSG had had 
> are: 1) arranging pro bono representation for covered parties and  2) 
> contracting with third parties to promote and educate potential 
>  Claimants as to their possible use of the IRP. As the provision is 
> oriented to members and potential members of our Stakeholder Group how 
> can we best assist the Board and staff in its implementation?
>
> Suggestions certainly welcome. I think it's important we make progress 
> on this and the meeting with the Board gives us a great opportunity to 
> do so.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed Morris
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161106/0f82bdcc/attachment.html>