Bill

On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:18 PM, Mary Wong wrote:

Thanks to Liz and Chuck for their clarifications and suggestions.

I agree that the DT should be reasonably small, and would in this case personally prefer not to set numbers for each SG/SO/AC, or worry about matching/equivalence. In other situations and over other issues, equal representation of each group may be a fundamental concern, but in this case I believe NCSG is recommending Avri and Milton not because we believe we (or everyone) needs at least two (or however many) representatives. Rather, and for the reasons that Bill has stated, Avri and Milton will best represent NCSG in terms of what is likely to be a difficult preliminary issue (i.e. scoping out the WG).

Cheers

Mary

Mary W S Wong

Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs

Franklin Pierce Law Center

Two White Street

Concord, NH 03301

USA

Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu

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

>>>

From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>

To: "William Drake" <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

CC: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@icann.org>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Date: 2/1/2010 4:33 PM

Subject: RE: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team

I wouldn't see any problem with that. I just think it would be best to keep it as small as reasonably possible because of the short timeframe and limited task. If the CSG wants three to cover three constituencies, would you want three? (BTW, they have not asked for three.)

Chuck

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:28 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team

Chuck,

Two. There are some fundamental issues in the air about the proper scope and terms of reference for the WG that need to be sorted out by the DT. Even if NCSG were to resolve its internal differences on these points, there would probably still be differences between the houses once the discussion gets to specifics. We're dealing with a rather variable geometry of perspectives, and as I say both people mentioned will add to working these things through.

Best,

Bill

On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Bill,

How many do you think the NCSG needs for the charter drafting team, not for the WG.

Chuck

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 3:59 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Volunteer for Vertical Integration PDP Charter Drafting Team

Hi

And from NCSG, Avri Doria and Milton Mueller.

One participant from each SG would not work for NCSG, as we have a couple of contending perspectives in play, with multiple members aligned with each. Avri and Milton have been very active and thoughtful proponents of those respective perspectives, both of which overlap/synergize in some ways with the positions advanced by other SGs. Should be an interesting discussion...

Best,

Bill

On Feb 1, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Glen,

Please add Brian Cute from Afilias to this DT.

Thanks, Chuck

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************