I think Mary's points are valid, and i will just add: go team! Thx Robin, Mary, Milton and everyone else who worked on this. Nicolas On 12/10/2010 11:56 AM, Mary Wong wrote: > In principle and substance, yes - but I would feel more comfortable, > and believe it would be more effective, if the references to ICANN > staff (e.g. "as claimed by staff") were removed or at least reduced. > Similarly, I would suggest rewording the point about the "company who > provides the expert advice is also hired by ICANN" to something along > the lines of "the third party contracted to select the experts who > will determine the objection". > 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] <mailto:[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: * Drake William <[log in to unmask]> > *To:* <[log in to unmask]> > *Date: * 12/10/2010 11:50 AM > *Subject: * Re: Draft Statement of NCUC on the Draft Applicant Guidebook > > Sure > > Bill > > On Dec 10, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > >> Here's the draft NCUC statement on the DAG and new gtlds. Please let >> me know if you support it's submission. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Robin >> >> >> Draft Statement of NCUC on the Draft Applicant Guidebook >> >> NCUC supports the prompt introduction of new gTLDs, yet we are deeply >> concerned about a number of implementation proposals in the latest >> Draft Applicant Guidebook, however believe they can be fixed and the >> new TLD process can move forward. >> >> In particular, we are concerned that the Independent Objector (IO) >> process is ripe for abuse and harmful to the public interest. The IO >> was a staff created policy that was never discussed let alone >> approved by the GNSO. We believe that it is entirely illogical that >> there can be a TLD that no community, religion, government, company, >> trademark holder, or individual in the world actually objects to – >> yet is “something we all agree is objectionable” as claimed by staff. >> >> Important safeguards to prevent abuse and “gaming” are lacking from >> the IO, as envisioned by staff. For example, there is no requirement >> that an objection brought by the IO be tied to at least one specific >> party who claims it will be harmed if the TLD goes forward. Such a >> requirement is necessary to achieve accountability in the new TLD >> process. >> >> Another feature missing from staff’s version of an IO is >> transparency. ICANN staff has stated a number of times that the IO >> is intended to provide a secret means for governments to object to a >> TLD string without having to do so publicly. For a public governance >> organization with transparency requirements, such a proposal for >> secret objections cannot stand. If there must be an IO, actual >> objectors must come forward and be transparent about their role to >> prevent the new TLD. >> >> According the staff memo on so-called Morality and Public Order >> objections, one of the purposes of the IO is “risk mitigation” to >> ICANN (i.e. a forum to quietly kill controversial TLDs to ward-off >> ICANN’s ability to be sued in courts of law). We do not support >> staff’s introduction of “risk mitigation strategy” as ICANN’s primary >> policy objective. As always, the global public interest with respect >> to the DNS is ICANN’s primary obligation, not ICANN’s own corporate >> interest. >> >> As designed by staff, the IO lacks true independence. The IO is >> employed by ICANN; likewise the company who provides the expert >> advice is also hired by ICANN, so there is a lack of neutrality on >> the part of the expert panel since they have an incentive to agree >> with the IO (ICANN) who hired it when they handle matters brought by >> the IO. >> >> On the issue of trademarks in the latest DAG, we are troubled by the >> elimination of sufficient time in which to respond to URS complaints >> in the latest DAG. Re-working the negotiated community consensus >> from 21 to 14 days as a timeframe in which to respond is concerning >> as it provides inadequate protection to registrants, who may be on >> holidays and unable to find an attorney and respond in a reasonable >> period of time. >> >> We share the concerns expressed in the At-Large Statement on Draft >> Applicant Guidebook. However, we believe the best course of action >> is to make the appropriate fixes to the policy to protect the global >> public interest and go forward with new TLDs in an expeditious manner. >> >> >> >> <NCSG stmt on rec6> >> >> >> >> 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 <http://www.ipjustice.org/> e: >> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 <http://www.ipjustice.org/> e: >> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > 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 <http://law.unh.edu>_ >