I have come to agree with Milton that we should not participate in this and should have a coordinated response to its outputs. BD On Mar 12, 2009, at 6:44 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Another aspect of this "team" that I find astonishing is how ICANN > is opening its wallet to fly the IPC and its friends around the > world to put on their "sky is falling show", but sends ALAC members > home from ICANN meetings a day early to save on travel expenses. > > > > > > On Mar 12, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > >> Thanks, Bill, >> >> It seems clear that IPC isn't really looking for a balanced team >> and is just looking for a team of itself to vocalize its own >> complaints. >> >> It is not possible to ask someone to participate in a realistic way >> before tomorrow. >> >> There is no information about what we would be asking people to >> do. All we know is that a team member must be willing to give up >> 2 "mystery weekends" between now and April (or is it mid-week?). >> >> We don't know where. We don't know when. We don't know for how >> long. We don't have an agenda or anything that would make this >> meeting seem like a sincere effort to include others not in the IPC. >> >> I can't imagine asking a reputable law professor to participate in >> this circus at this point. >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >> >> >> On Mar 12, 2009, at 7:00 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Well, this is interesting, in several respects... >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Rosette, Kristina <[log in to unmask]> >>> Date: Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:43 PM >>> Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> >>> >>> Hi Bill, >>> >>> Unfortunately, extending the deadline is simply not possible given >>> the deadlines provided by the Board in the resolution and the work >>> that needs to be done. Moreover, a large number of people from >>> almost every constituency and some of the ACs had already >>> contacted IPC members about participating and had been provided >>> similar information to that set forth below. I posted the message >>> below in an effort to provide the information for dissemination to >>> those who had not already contacted IPC members. As for the >>> Board's intent, I believe the language of the resolution speaks >>> for itself. >>> >>> Kristina >>> >>> >>> From: William Drake [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:21 AM >>> To: Rosette, Kristina >>> Cc: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants >>> >>> Hi Kristina, >>> >>> Thanks for this information, which I've just passed on to NCUC. >>> However, I would strongly suggest that we extend the deadline to >>> Monday or Tuesday. Notification at 11pm on the 11th of a 13th >>> noon deadline is a very unworkable turnaround time if we are >>> serious about getting strong applicants and engagement from all >>> constituencies, as the board intends. Some people might not be >>> reading mail today or be able to determine so quickly whether the >>> workload fits with their schedule etc. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote: >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> Because we've received a number of inquiries about nominations >>>> for IRT participants, we thought it would be helpful to provide >>>> the information below. >>>> >>>> Nominations for IRT participants should be sent to Steve Metalitz >>>> (IPC President), Ute, Cyril or me. Steve's email address is not >>>> on the Council page or the IPC home page so please contact me off- >>>> list if you would like it. >>>> >>>> The nominations must include: >>>> >>>> 1. The full name and contact information of the nominee >>>> (including the name of her/his employer and title); >>>> 2. The ICANN Geographic Region(s) in which the nominee is a >>>> citizen and is a resident; >>>> 3. Identification of the nominee's knowledge, experience, and >>>> expertise in the fields of trademark, consumer protection, or >>>> competition law, and the interplay of trademarks and the domain >>>> name system; >>>> >>>> 4. Identification of any financial ownership or senior >>>> management/leadership interest of the nominee in registries, >>>> registrars or other entities that are stakeholders or interested >>>> parties in ICANN or any entity with which ICANN has a >>>> transaction, contract, or other arrangement; >>>> >>>> 5. State if the nominee would be representing any other party or >>>> person through her/his IRT participation and, if so, identify >>>> that party or person; and >>>> >>>> 6. State if the nominee submitted public comments on the first >>>> draft of the DAG that provided proposed solutions to the >>>> trademark issues and, if so, attach a copy of those comments. >>>> >>>> We must receive all nominations not later than Friday, 13 March, >>>> at noon EDT. Because of the deadlines set forth by the Board in >>>> the resolution, it will be exceedingly difficult to consider any >>>> nominations submitted after that point. Also, based on very >>>> preliminary time lines, IRT participants should expect to spend >>>> at least 15 full business days (excluding travel time) in the >>>> next two months on the team's work. >>>> >>>> Kristina >>>> >>> >>>