I think a bloc vote against by NCSG would be counter-productive (unless, of course, all Councilors believe a No vote is justified). We had volunteers on the WG, even though that was a largely thankless and possibly fruitless task, and the fundamental problems - that the GNSO is perceived to be a unilateral entity which views itself above and apart from the other SOs, and that consequently it believes it can dictate practice to the others - won't be solved by a No vote. We also approved the formation of the WG in the first place, so trying to get some positive results out of the process at a time when volunteer time and energy is scarce is IMHO something worth trying for. I'd be inclined to try to get an amendment through that addresses the concerns raised about the GNSO lording it over the other SOs - since we are asking to defer the motion that will give us a bit of time to think about appropriate wording. If our proposed amendment then fails, we would be legitimately positioned to do the principled abstention mentioned by Joy. BTW, Nicolas - your contributions are very useful, so thank you for trusting us Councilors to convey your and others' views appropriately, including, where necessary, punting, compromising and strategizing! Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: [log in to unmask]: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Joy Liddicoat <[log in to unmask]> To:<[log in to unmask]> Date: 1/18/2012 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups My take on the discussion so far is that there is no consensus (rough or otherwise) in favour of these motions, but there is a desire for the GNSO to be talking with other constituencies about cross constituency working group principles. On that basis the option is to either vote against or a *principled* abstention (ie on the basis of lack of cross constituency co-operation in the development of these). Views? Joy -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nicolas Adam Sent: Thursday, 19 January 2012 8:21 a.m. To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups Having principles should in no way prevent from being strategical. Thought I'd voice this since i have been sounding off a lot on principles. I don't believe in karma, but i hate inesthetical things with a passion. Fortunately, I find good strategy to be of the highest aesthetical order. While I think principles are important, weaving them unstrategically is aesthetically reprehensible to me. So on the 3 options, I don't know which i would push. Note that I sometimes expect the people that are able to do politics and compromise to use my principled opposition as best they see. This is why i voted for them. I try to give munition as well as myopinion but I am happy to defer to our elected representatives who are in positions to see more globally (and strategically) than I can with my limited experience .... . Nicolas ######### Bill, a few questions (for when you have time, of course, and with thx in advance): why wouldn't an amendment pass? and what was the outreach vote that had the GNSO divided? Can someone comment on the economy/culture of vote trading/politics between both GNSO's SGs? is there for instance a recent paper recounting recent negotiations or some such? On 18/01/2012 8:04 AM, William Drake wrote: >> > I believe that anyone who does vote for it, should be ready to support its principles in any negotiation or risk the same approbation you are concerned about now. To hope that it will be ok, because ALAC will object may not be the most advisable course. Then again, US politics has taught me that there does not need to be a necessary connection between how one votes, what one says and what one does, so in the long run, perhaps it is only karma and doing what you think is right that matters. > US politics is a rich vein to mine for depressing lessons, but I'm not sure I'd like to embrace that one. I do suspect though that any SO/AC, not just ALAC, that enters into discussion with GNSO will only accept rules of engagement they find amenable, so even if GNSO sez it wants x that's not the end of the matter. > > We could defer, amend, both. Any thoughts on my suggestion in that regard?