<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] NTIA letter to ICANN
As much as I disagree with the letter's assumptions and conclusions, and
believe this letter impacts Neustar probably more than any other party, I agree
with Adrian that this is and should not be an issue for the GNSO to discuss in
any formal meeting. If we want to chat away about it during dinner, drinks,
happy hour, etc., I would be happy to give you my thoughts. But, lets reserve
that hour for items that we can control for now.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
Please note new address: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 6:12 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] NTIA letter to ICANN
Just to add to your discussion: please don't forget that this is being proposed
for that hour we had set aside for open conversation, not official action.
Don't know if that helps in the context of what you two are discussing...
Stéphane
Le 17 juin 2011 à 12:04, Adrian Kinderis a écrit :
If the USG had not have sent that letter would we have felt the need to
"re-open" the discussion?
As you have said, we already tried and got nowhere. What has changed?
I believe it is up to the Board to determine if this is an issue. We don't take
direction from any one government last time I checked. I won't even ask if the
GNSO Council would want immediate discussions if the Australian Government sent
an letter of the same ilk...
I am not interested in re-opening any debate or discussion and strongly suggest
the GNSO Council observe and move on.
Adrian Kinderis
From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, 17 June 2011 5:57 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis; GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] NTIA letter to ICANN
I agree we won't be in a position to respond at the moment, and certainly not
in the next week, but my thought was: (1) given that we'd had a WG looking at
the issue which reached no consensus, the Council as managers could (should?)
at least start a discussion as to whether or not to re-open the issue within
the GNSO community; and (2) in view of its potential implications for the new
gTLD program, if we do decide to start discussing it, it might be useful to do
so ahead of the special Board meeting on Monday.
Cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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
>>>
From:
Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
To:
"Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>"
<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date:
6/17/2011 5:49 AM
Subject:
RE: [council] NTIA letter to ICANN
I am not sure to what end?
Why would we discuss this?
Haven't we already got a full agenda? Why is this particular letter so
important. I am not convinced the GNSO Council is in a position to respond nor
assist here...
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, 17 June 2011 5:45 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] NTIA letter to ICANN
Despite the unfortunate timing (16 June) I think this is an important
development and support discussing it on Saturday. We may need to have a follow
up discussion, but it would be good to have at least an initial conversation as
soon as possible.
Cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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
>>>
From:
Stéphane Van
Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
To:
GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date:
6/17/2011 5:40 AM
Subject:
[council] NTIA letter to ICANN
Councillors,
For those of you that haven't seen this, here is a link to the letter NTIA has
sent to ICANN re the new gTLD program.
http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/strickling-to-dengate-thrush-16jun11-en.pdf
This is one of the topics that we could discuss during our Saturday morning
session, if there is interest in doing so.
Stéphane
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|