NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Mueller, Milton L" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mueller, Milton L
Date:
Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:09:13 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
Amr, Farzaneh:

The intransigence of the IPR constituencies has been a constant since ICANN's inception. 

They never compromise so it's not advisable to offer them any compromises. 



--MM





> -----Original Message-----

> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf

> Of Amr Elsadr

> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 5:57 AM

> To: [log in to unmask]

> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Reports from the GNSO Bylaws

> Implementation Drafting Team

> 

> Hi again,

> 

> Steve Metalitz of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) circulated a

> minority statement to the Bylaws DT list that he asked to be forwarded to

> the GNSO Council on behalf of the three Commercial Stakeholder Group

> (CSG) constituencies. I’ve attached it to this email. It concerns the DT’s

> majority view to grant Council the role of acting on behalf the GNSO as a

> decisional participant in the EC.

> 

> Personally, I don’t find anything in the minority statement that adds to the

> arguments presented on behalf of the minority group within the DT that

> wasn’t already included in the DT’s final report. Speaking for myself, I believe

> the CSG constituencies have been rather unhelpful on this topic while

> working on the DT. Instead of focusing on the mandate of the DT, they took

> the opportunity to raise points that are likely more relevant to their ongoing

> desire to restructure the GNSO, and do away with the bicameral House

> structure it uses. I also believe the DT, over the past seven weeks, has

> wasted precious time negotiating edits to the report in order to prevent

> overrepresentation of the minority view compared to the overall DT

> consensus. This was, at times, frustrating, but I’m not unhappy with the final

> result.

> 

> The DT’s report, recommendations and minority statement will be discussed

> during today’s Council call. There is a placeholder motion to adopt the DT’s

> work, but given the timing of the DT’s conclusion of its work, I believe this

> motion should and will be deferred.

> 

> If you’d like to listen in on the Council call, you should be able to do so using a

> live audio stream here: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u. It

> begins in about an hour at UTC 12:00.

> 

> Thanks.

> 

> Amr




ATOM RSS1 RSS2