Thanks much, David. I think it would be very informative for our members if we can get some sense from the Council (and thus the rest of the GNSO community) as to whether any, some or all of the instances I've mentioned (and which have also been highlighted by Robin and others) are thought to be problematic for the GNSO's role and policy scope; and if so, whether there is any interest in doing anything about it.


Cheers

Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php


>>>

From:

David Cake <[log in to unmask]>

To:

<[log in to unmask]>

Date:

3/25/2013 4:52 AM

Subject:

Re: [NCSG-Discuss] ICANN is bottom-up, except for when it is top-down. Fwd: Memorandum on the Trademark Clearinghouse ³Strawman Solution²


On 22/03/2013, at 10:00 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:


It seems to me that there may be a good topic for the SG to raise with the Board here during the Board-NCSG meeting in Beijing. Several recent developments such as: (1) the Board's unilateral contract amendment power for both Registry and Registrar Accreditation Agreements; (2) the sudden introduction of the PIC Specification (presumably related to GAC pressure); (3) the imposition of a to-be-determined new WHOIS policy; and, now, (4) the adoption of much of the TM "strawman" proposal - all call into question the relevance and sanctity of the GNSO's policy development processes.


This relates also to the whole "policy vs implementation" discussion that's ongoing.


Two ideas for the group to consider, therefore:


(1) [To our Councilors] Will the GNSO Council stand aside and allow these process runarounds to occur?


As a councillor, I feel very strongly about the strawman decision, especially the '+50' decision. We haven't discussed specific action yet, but I'm sure it will be discussed in Beijing, and I will be pushing for the strongest possible objection from the council.



Regards


David