This is fantastic Mary, thanks!  I support the statement. It is more
than adequate and should be submitted just to get on the record. We
can always follow up as needed.

Best,
Brenden

On 4/15/09, Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I agree - in the limited few hours left we may want to focus on the
> criticisms leveled by the IPC and continue to work on a response that
> critiques the IPC's own proposal.
>
> It's almost midnight here in England and I'm jetlagged and exhausted - can
> someone volunteer to submit a response to the public comment forum along the
> lines of:
>
> "The IPC appears to be attempting to re-open the Board's resolution of 28
> August 2008, which endorsed the WG-GCR report and approved the division of
> seats in the new non-contracted party house (6 from the Commercial
> Stakeholder Group, and 6 from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group). The
> NCUC as currently comprised acknowledges and accepts the BGC's view that a
> new NCSG should go beyond the current membership of the NCUC (as detailed in
> the BGC report of 3 February 2008, approved by the Board on 26 June 2008.)
> It is the view of those who submitted the proposed new NCSG charter on 16
> March 2009 that:
>
> (1) the new charter will go further than the existing NCUC processes and the
> charters submitted by the other existing ICANN Constituencies to ensure
> broader, more diverse and greater participation and membership by (a)
> minimizing barriers to membership/entry for both individuals and
> organizations; (b) ensuring that minority views are represented; and (c)
> allowing for the easy formation (subject to Board approval) of new
> constituencies; and
>
> (2) the IPC's critique of the re-seating of the 3 existing NCUC Councillors
> fails to recognize that this is simply a one-off transition move. Given the
> tremendous workload and incredibly short ramping-up time new Councillors
> have to become familiar with ICANN processes, acronyms, bylaws and
> operations, it is simply not feasible to expect any constituency/SG to hold
> elections and seat new Councillors by the Sydney meeting. Further, the GNSO
> Improvements Process itself recognizes the need to ensure transitional
> continuity (e.g. by the possibility, now beind discussed within the GNSO
> Council, of having staggered terms for Councillors) and for proper training
> of Councillors. It is thus entirely possible that the new NCSG may, upon
> formation, hold elections for new Councillors; the current NCSG charter
> proposal merely suggests a that reseating incumbent Councillors is a
> transitory stage to such elections."
>
> Robin or someone - can you review, edit and (if the substance of my comments
> here are acceptable to folks on this listserv) send to the Public Comments
> forum ASAP? I'm honestly too wiped out to know if I'm making any sense :(
>
> Thanks,
> Mary
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Franklin Pierce Law Center
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
> at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>
>
>>>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 4/15/2009 5:48 PM >>>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I agree that we should submit a response to this that discusses in detail
> the great wisdom of their SG proposal.  However, I'd prefer that we not try
> to throw something together in 2 hours, but rather take some time and come
> up with a solid document.  A response from the non-commercial users to the
> IPC's charge against us must be received by ICANN - even if it comes in 1
> week after the public comment period.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
> On Apr 15, 2009, at 2:16 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
>
>
> Robin,
>
> Nice that they waited until the last minute to submit this, without ever
> seeking a discussion with us in any setting.
>
> What's the precise cut off time for comments?  It's what, 2pm in California,
> so there is some time before COB.  If you have a little head space, why not
> write a short critique of the CSG Charter, such that it is?  It's after 11pm
> here and I can't type any more today, but I'd support whatever you come up
> with.  There's plenty to complain about starting with the first para, which
> claims the CSC represents "users;" the restrictive membership construction
> (e.g. how many individual entrepreneurs do they have, how representative,
> diverse, and "deserving" are they); and complete lack of clarity and
> development in their draft about essentially all institutional aspects (all
> those high-paid lawyers and this is the best they can do?), a point that
> should be hammered. Perhaps a new council shouldn't be seated until they
> clarify how they will select six reflecting the criteria we are alleged not
> to meet.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>
>
> The IP Constituency submitted its comments today on the stakeholder group
> petitions.
>
> See:
>    http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/pdfyb62GoZM3w.pdf
>
> It calls on the ICANN Board to deny the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group its
> rightful 6 council seats, claiming we aren't "representative" enough.  The
> IPC complains because our counselors will remain seated after June (but
> doesn't mention that its own counselors will also remain seated).  In fact,
> it didn't make any comments on its own proposals - it is only a slam on all
> non-commercial users proposals.
>
> Wow.  They really are desperate with this move.
>
> 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: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> [log in to unmask]
> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org