Thanks, Mary for the advice, and David for the follow-up. I appreciate such orientation as I am preparing to substitute again for Joy at the GNSO meeting in a couple of hours. Any further advice from anybody? Norbert = On 14 2.2013 10:32, David Cake wrote: > > On 14/02/2013, at 9:48 AM, [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Good to see the support from NCUC and NPOC members! I was on the call >> with Avri today and it was really odd. May I request our Councilors >> to make the point Avri made about maintaining the integrity of the >> PDP process during the Council call tomorrow? > > I am willing to speak during the council call to make this point. I > strongly agree that any move to restrict IGO/INGO names at this point > is very premature. > > Regards > David >> >> It seems to me that all the GNSO Council needs to say to the Board at >> this time is that the Working Group for the PDP is going strong, >> doing plenty of work and having lots of excellent discussions. As >> such, rather than act in haste/under pressure from the >> GAC/peremptorily, the Board ought to wait for the GNSO's PDP to run >> its course. The Council should convey to the Board its belief that >> the PDP WG will come up with a set of firm and implementable >> recommendations that will have been thoroughly discussed with some of >> the affected IGOs and INGOs, and advise the Board to desist till this >> is the case. >> >> Cheers >> Mary >> >> >> Mary W S Wong >> Professor of Law >> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP >> 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: * >> >> "klaus.stoll" <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> *To:* >> >> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> *Date: * >> >> 2/13/2013 5:46 PM >> *Subject: * >> >> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] The Board, IGO entitlement to special protections >> and 28 Feb >> >> Dear Avr >> >> Greetings. If there is any way I can help to draft a statement to the >> board >> before the 28th please let me know. >> >> Yours >> >> Klais >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carl Smith >> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:23 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: The Board, IGO entitlement to special protections and 28 Feb >> >> Thanks Avri, >> >> This is disturbing news. Hope you can get a quorum of the brainy people >> in the group to create a sound response. I wish I was thirty years >> younger. Looking forward to discussions. >> >> Best >> >> Lou >> >> On 2/13/2013 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > During yesterday's meeting we discussed the irem on the g-cpuncil >> agenda >> > pertaining to special protection for IGO, given the deadline of 28 >> Feb for >> > Board consideration of yet another preemptive assignment of an >> entitlement >> > to protection, as was done for the RCRC and IOC. >> > >> > It appears that Thomas is planning to suggest that the GNSO support a >> > decision by the Board granting entitlements to IGO names as suggest >> by the >> > GAC. >> > >> > Unfortunately Evan and I were the only one to speak out agains the >> board >> > making the decisions at this time because: >> > >> > A. it is not the same as the RCRC/IOC case since a PDP is ongoing >> and this >> > prejudices that work >> > B. It is not an emergency >> > >> > But Alan, the IOC and the Greg Shatan (IGO) spoke in favor of >> getting this >> > new entitlement as soon as possible, so the recommendation from Thomas >> > will be for the creation of the new entitlements, once again preempting >> > the rule of PDP. >> > >> > Note: Alan also suggested that if we don't like this or the previous >> > RCRC/IOC entitlement decision, we should file a reconsideration. For >> > once, I agree with him. >> > >> > I would also note that no one from the RrSg or RySG ventured an >> opinion. >> > >> > At this point we have, perhaps, until 28 Feb to file a statement >> rejecting >> > yet another attack against the Rule of PDP. Should we be working >> on one? >> > >> > Also should we file a request for reconsideration of the previous >> decision >> > on RCRC and IOC? I am less sure about this because since there was >> no PDP >> > in process at the time. While the best thing for the Board to have >> done >> > would have been to request a PDP, there was no rule that barred >> them from >> > the making a preemptive decision as they did. Yes it is against >> the pubic >> > interest in that it erodes the confidence in the ICANN and its >> processes, >> > but it is not prevented by the bylaws. >> > >> > avri >> > >> >