Hi
Per previous I support breaking it into separate statements to allow for varying degrees of engagement and consensus internally and cleaner outreach & message packaging externally. On the latter, maybe a couple people could work on distribution lists so when ready we can get them around quickly...?
Bill
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 11, 2011, at 23:49, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> No fair, I suggest splitting it up and you assign me work.
>
> But sure, I think it is a good concrete suggestion to share the pain and get the work done. I am willing to take an editor's pen if there is no objection to my doing so.
>
> I like the idea of the sections getting support separately. If any of these statements can be NCSG statements, that is great, but otherwise those who support them, e.g. constituencies, candidate constituencies, RALOs or ALAC, can be listed.
>
> And thanks to Mary, Milton, Konstantinos and Robin who have gotten us this far. I am assuming that their material provides the base we would start with.
>
> a.
>
> On 11 Feb 2011, at 14:18, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>> I think we do want to break the statement up into 3 distinct pieces (as Avri pointed out, we could garner outside support for some of the individual statements).
>>
>> So I'd suggest we break it up into: 1) a stmt on the govt power grab with the veto over new tlds; 2) stmt on the trademark issues; 3) stmt on vertical integration. Most of the meat is already there, so let's just divide it up and continue to refine the documents separately.
>>
>> I also suggest we divide up the work for the 3 statements and ask 3 different people to "hold the editing pen" for those individual statements and receive further suggestions from the constituency on edits going forward.
>>
>> Perhaps Milton can "hold the editing pen" on the 1st statement above?
>>
>> Perhaps Konstantinos can "hold the editing pen" on the 2nd stmt on TM?
>>
>> Perhaps Avri can "hold the pen" on the vertical integration?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
>>
>>> I think Avri's suggestion is a good one, particularly as the document is getting longer and in some sections the comments may take on a stronger tone.
>>>
>>> Frankly, though, I have absolutely no bandwidth at this point to keep taking additions and amendments :( I will try, but do bear in mind also that any new drafts will have to be re-circulated by those of us who have already sent earlier versions round, so that will also eat up time. Nonetheless I'll do what I can with what's been sent to the list to date.
>>>
>>> Avri's question is also a good reminder that this process cannot (should not) be about challenging the original GNSO recommendations, but rather the implementations thereof. To the extent the USG Proposal does that, I think we should highlight that too.
>>>
>>> Thanks and cheers
>>> Mary
>>>
>>>
>>> Mary W S Wong
>>> Professor of Law
>>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
>>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
>>> Two White Street
>>> Concord, NH 03301
>>> USA
>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>> 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: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: 2/11/2011 2:07 PM
>>> Subject: Re: statement on USG proposal GAC-Board Discussion on Rec. 6
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Still reading through, but wondering is there any value in producing 3 separate statements, one on each of the topics? Might find we have different levels of support on different sections.
>>>
>>> Another question I have recently been wondering about: when the Board and GAC speak, will they only be discussing the implementation or will they also be challenging the decisions made in relation to the GNSO recommendations.
>>> e.g., are they challenging the 'protect the right of others' recommendation or just its implementation, is GNSO recommendation 6 the problem or the MAPO/LPIO implementation? I.e is the issue the implementation or the whole basis of the program?
>>>
>>> The answer to this might affect the way the response is phrased.
>>>
>>> a.
>>>
>>> On 10 Feb 2011, at 23:12, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the initial drafts and edits to this group statement. I've made some additional suggested edits to the latest draft circulated (attached).
>>>>
>>>> I think the draft still needs to have the trademark issues beefed up (Konstantinos?) and would benefit tremendously from Bill's copyediting skills. I suspect the document will end up as a "NCUC comment", but we'll see....
>>>>
>>>> Any other comments and suggested edits to the group statement?
>>>>
>>>> What kind of time frame are we on for finalizing this comment? I suppose we should have something final to present at least 1 week before the Brussels meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> <NCSG Statement on USG Proposal-MM-RDG-edits.doc>
>>>>
>>>> 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]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: [log in to unmask] For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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]
>>
>>
>>
|
