[council] Clarification & next steps for Rec 6 motion

["Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello everyone, 
 
I thought it would be useful if I provide some additional context and 
clarification regarding the Rec 6 motion that is up for voting this Wednesday. 
Bearing in mind that the Rec 6 CWG was approved and chartered by us in 
September, and that silence or a down vote by us on this matter will be viewed 
as a lack of support by the GNSO of the work done (unlike, say, the STI 
recommendations which we endorsed and that resulted in substantive changes to 
the DAG), I am hopeful that we can arrive at satisfactory language for a 
positive outcome on the motion.
 
Here are some points that may not have been made entirely clear before:
 
(1) The explanatory memo setting out reasons for not adopting some CWG 
recommendations is a staff document, not a Board-endorsed response. In fact, 
the Board is interested to know what the GNSO thinks before voting/acting on 
this issue in the DAG.
 
(2) There is a pending response from the CWG to the staff, based on questions 
and discussions arising from the staff memo, which the CWG expects will clarify 
certain of its recommendations for the staff (and hence the Board). I expect 
this response to be forwarded very shortly, possibly even today.
 
(3) As mentioned above, a lack of Council action on Rec 6 is very likely to be 
taken as lack of support for any of the CWG recommendations, including the 
numerous ones that received Full Consensus. I believe this would be detrimental 
to both our managerial and our representative role, and further believe that 
this would NOT necessarily mean the Board will therefore vote to move ahead 
immediately with new gTLDs (particularly given points (1) & (2) above.) In 
other words, the Board may vote to postpone its decision on the matter pending 
further resolution and action from us and/or the GAC.
 
(4) I understand that some SGs/constituencies may not have had the bandwidth to 
fully discuss all the recommendations (note that the CWG report does state the 
following: 
 
"Given the short duration of the Rec6 CWG's existence, the participating 
supporting organizations and advisory organizations have not been provided with 
the opportunity to review and comment on this Report.   The Rec6 CWG recommends 
that each participating organization should follow its procedures as described 
in the ICANN Bylaws as may be necessary or appropriate to comment on and 
communicate to the ICANN Board the opinion of its members with regard to the 
recommendations contained in this Report....")
 
I would like to be able to discuss any suggested changes to the motion that 
will make it more acceptable to you and your SGs/constituencies. Please let me 
know if and when you would like to do so before Wednesday. I hope we can arrive 
at a mutually agreeable motion that will allow the Board to act with better 
information and input from the GNSO.
 
Thanks very much,
Mary
 
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 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

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: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more information on the 
University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu