RE: [council] Clarification & next steps for Rec 6 motion

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mary.

(1) I don't really believe this. If you carefully consider what Staff
says it is clear that at least some sense of the Board is being
reflected in the reply. Is it a formal Board response, no. But to
characterize it as only a Staff response is not right either.

(2) Does the response from the CWG have the full consensus of the CWG?
Some I have heard from indicate that based on the Staff/Board response
they nave changed their position on some of the recs. So if the CWG does
forward with a response I think it should be clear as to who supports
what.

(3) This is why you should not have made such an 11th hour motion. I
think it will be difficult to near impossible for us to vote in favor of
this motion.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Clarification & next steps for Rec 6 motion
> From: "Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, December 06, 2010 9:37 am
> To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
> 
>     
>       
> 
>     
>     
>       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
>     
>   
>