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