RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council

["Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I too will be the provisional rep to the DT from NCUC. As we go into
Seoul, it is very likely that additional members of the NCUC-NCSG will
join the DT. For now, please add me to the listserv and group.
 
Speaking personally (and not as an NCUC Councillor), I agree with
Kristina's suggestion below that a small group of former IRT members be
asked to serve as an advisory group to this DT. In particular, I'd
advocate for those former IRT members with either technical and/or
"historical" experience in gTLD operational matters to form this small
advisory group.
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> 10/20/2009 6:54 PM >>>

I will be the provisional IPC rep (and one of the CSG reps) to the DT. 
Depending on the work plan developed by the DT and approved by the
Council in Seoul, the IPC may wish to designate a different
representative from that point forward.

The Board letter to the Council makes clear that certain aspects of the
IRT's recommendations remain poorly understood. Accordingly, the IPC
suggests that the Council request that the former IRT identify a small
group of its members to serve as a resource and advisory group to the DT
and whatever "entity" takes the work forward.  In particular, it would
be most productive for that group to include at least one former IRT
member who worked on the IP Clearinghouse Proposal and one who worked on
the URS proposal.  (The IRT work was done through several work teams. 
Those former IRT members who worked on the specific recommendations will
be best placed to clarify any misunderstandings, to explain the
reasoning behind certain recommendations, and the like). Being able to
call on former IRT members for such clarification and explanation will
be highly conducive to a quality product in responding to the letter.  



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:46 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council



On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> If we do decide to go for a DT,

I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that
have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts.

I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we
have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to
those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings.

This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter
on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the
suggestion about forming a DT a good idea.  Because of the press of
time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this.  So I am suggesting we
start now.

I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active
Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps
even finding time for a teleconference) and  on the weekend to come up
with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/accept at the
Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting.

Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask
each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1
representative each for the STI-DT  and ask Glen (or some member of
staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with
open archive, for that team immediately.  I think it is a good
suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either
members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3
volunteers.  I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not
necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend
that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least
temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course
for council membership).

We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I
suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne
time.

The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting
(https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009
), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday
meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? 
agenda_29_oct_2009).

a.