[council] RE: DOI motion

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

My apologies that I had to drop off the call and so could not
participate live in the discussion of this motion.
 
I volunteer to work with Stephane and others on amending the GCOT
language, including either the elimination or at least the very
substantial streamlining of the DOI procedure. 
 
I agree with Tim that this is something we ought to be able to do at
Council level, as managers of GNSO work processes, and, as Chuck says,
the OSC can weigh in on whether our changes need to go back to the
GCOT.
 
For the sake of clarity, I should add also that I agree the
previously-recommended DOI procedures were unmanageable and incredibly
cumbersome. While it would likely be ideal to eliminate them entirely
from the Operating Procedures, I was very recently asked by an NCSG
constituent whether the Council had checked that all the language -
including having a DOI procedure - was consistent with the original BGC
report, and if not, whether we thought we had sufficiently deliberated
the implications of any diversion from the BGC's recommendations.
 
As Stephane noted, these and other points of discussion ought ideally
to have been raised and debated prior to the motion being called for a
vote. I am glad Bill raised the issue he did, and wish I could have done
the same in respect of all the Operating Procedures. While the outcome
of yesterday's vote may have been unfortunate in some ways, I think that
it is possible to have these issues discussed at greater length than
they have been, and even that improved language and amendments - as well
as a possible motion broadly acceptable to most - be presented to
Council and the community soon.
 
Let's get started and get agreement on the Operating Procedures soon;
I'm sure we will all be relieved when that is no longer a continued
agenda item for the Council!
 
Cheers
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>>> 


From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:"William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van
Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
CC:<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 11/19/2010 8:46 AM
Subject: RE: AW: [council] MP3 recording  GNSO Council teleconference,
Thursday   28 October 2010

I think it is up to the OSC as to whether it needs to go back to the
GCOT or not.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 6:58 AM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Cc: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: AW: [council] MP3 recording GNSO Council
teleconference,
> Thursday 28 October 2010
> 
> 
> Hi Stéphane
> 
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
> > Thank you Wolf for some excellent comments.
> >
> > Bill, I think the clear perception on the DOI motion is that there
> was a vote against a motion that simply set out to do what we all
seem
> to want: get rid of the cumbersome DOI obligation.
> 
> Don't know why or among whom, I thought I explained on the list
prior
> and on the call that it wasn't a disagreement on DOI.  Must be my
> English.
> >
> > That said, we talked about it afterwards and I now understand that
> the intent was to push the revisions further and change other
aspects
> of the GCOT recommendations that people have problems with.
> >
> > If you are amenable to the idea, I would be happy to work with you
or
> others that voted against my DOI motion to draft a new motion that
can
> achieve the outcomes that everyone wants.
> 
> Just to be clear, what needs tweaking is the Op Procedures the
motion
> endorses.
> >
> > We could then take that motion back to our respective groups to
see
> if there is support for it, and then propose it to Council.
> >
> > Let me know if there is any interest in doing things that way.
> 
> Sure, of course, it shouldn't be hard to fix, unless we manage to
make
> it that way.  Has to go back through GCOT too, no?
> 
> BD
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Stéphane
> >
> > Le 19 nov. 2010 à 12:14, William Drake a écrit :
> >
> >>
> >> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
> >>
> >> On Nov 19, 2010, at 10:51 AM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Colleagues,
> >>>
> >>> As follow-up of the council meeting yesterday I have some
> >>> observations/opinion which I'd like to share:
> >>>
> >>> 1. For me it was really a lesson on how to "manage" the policy
> >>> development process by achieving just minimum progress. None of
the
> 3
> >>> motions presented did pass, 2 of them were delayed. This is what
I
> fear
> >>> volunteers' level of commitment is going to decrease.
> >>
> >> Why would that be the result?  As we discussed in the chat space
> during the meeting, the GCOT language can be fixed and people have
said
> fine let's cooperate to do that, the JAS process isn't going to shut
> down, and the VI motion should pass next time.  I guess I am
fearless
> in this regard.
> >>
> >>> And it is an
> >>> indication that work management on WG level as well as
preparation
> on SG
> >>> level have to be improved, too.
> >>
> >> Undoubtedly these can always be better
> >>
> >>> I'd be happy to discuss ways of improvement during the "council
> role"
> >>> meeting in Cartagena.
> >>>
> >>> 2. With regards to the motion on DOI the result - after the
> discussion
> >>> weeks ago - was surprising. It seems that one SG didn't have
time
> enough
> >>
> >>> to discuss their questionmarks.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry the timing was off, as I said I was traveling and had
> limited connectivity for a couple weeks so I didn't see the revised
> GCOT section 5 until the other day, when I sent a note to the
Council
> list expressing concern about it.  That said, it wasn't just one SG
> that voted against it.  It was 6 NCSG, 2 CSG, and one NCA that voted
> against, with 1 CSG (you) abstaining.
> >>
> >>> In this case normally a request for
> >>> delaying the motion is sufficient - which allows for improving
the
> >>> motion as well as the referenced documents. It would have sent a
> signal
> >>> to the community very different from just rejecting the motion.
> Maybe
> >>> that could be made clear in the meeting minutes by the resp. SG.
> >>
> >> The resp. SG has been pretty clear, including yesterday, that we
> want to see the DOI language go, so I'd be surprised if there's
anyone
> in the community who'd confuse the vote for an endorsement of DOIs.
> But we also want the bits on indirect and noncommercial interests
fixed
> too, and this should be done simultaneously rather than
sequentially.
> (Actually, the proxy language needs tweaking as well).  And there's
> reason to doubt that delaying the motion to the next meeting would
have
> provided sufficient time to get the language fixed, and if it didn't
> then we'd have ended up voting against it then anyway.  Wouldn't
> delaying it and then voting against it send a stronger and more
> confusing signal?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 3. Regarding the motion on JAS WG charter extension I'd like to
see
> the
> >>> Resolved 1.c) removed although I've accepted at first an
amendment.
> >>> Also in light of the quantity of issues the WG has to deal with
-
> here I
> >>> join Tim's reservations - I'm of the opinion this might be a
task
> for a
> >>> separate more balanced group to work on comprehensively.
> >>
> >> How is the group unbalanced, and if it is, wouldn't it be better
to
> achieve balance than to create a separate group?
> >>
> >>> The JAS WG
> >>> should just point out that new applicants in scope should be
given
> the
> >>> opportunity to participate appropriately in any auction profit
to
> be
> >>> defined by this separate group. JAS WG shouldn't be mandated
with
> >>> outlining the respective rules - even not for consideration due
to
> other
> >>> matters of urgency.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks much,
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ***********************************************************
> >> William J. Drake
> >> Senior Associate
> >> Centre for International Governance
> >> Graduate Institute of International and
> >> Development Studies
> >> Geneva, Switzerland
> >> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> www.williamdrake.org
> >> ***********************************************************
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
> 
> 





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