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