Thanks, Jeff. It's essentially because I don't want procedural questions or background matters to cloud the work of the DT or hold up the process unduly that I thought I'd ask. I hope that this has made it clearer for anyone else with similar questions as well.
Cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
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
>>>
Stephane is correct that the status document is not one that needs to be put out for public comment as it is an informal document.
That said, the recommendations 1-3 in the report are recommendations from the Drafting Team that we do want feedback on for the Costa Rica meeting and it is those recommendations that in theory would be put before the Council at that time (not the report).
I would strongly encourage everyone to get feedback on those recommendations ASAP from your constituencies, stakeholder groups, ACs, etc. This is not a new request as Drafting Team members have been doing this all along. Circumstances here are not perfect. No one is going to argue with that. We all wish we have more time, but we do not. The GAC has asked us to comment on their proposal to us in September with the intention of it being implemented at the top-level in this round and we should all strive to do that.
It would be disappointing to the Drafting Team if we could not get past the procedural issues at the council level when the Drafting Team has worked so hard to come with a solution that actually works for the parties involved. So we all know what the procedural issues are. The Drafting Team would really appreciate any comments on the substance.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
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-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Agree on both counts Chuck. My point here is that this is not something that has come out of the DT. This is a document that Jeff drafted in his own time, following a request from the GAC to have some supporting documentation.
To me, putting such a document out for public comment would be a step too far from standard procedure.
Stéphane
Le 29 févr. 2012 à 22:34, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
Moreover, it is not without precedent for WG’s to request comments on their work before they are finished.
Chuck
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu
Thanks for the clarification, Stephane - I'd asked precisely because it occurred to me that having a formal public comment period for this report would not be possible for a number of reasons. That said, and assuming the Council will be asked to vote on one/some/all recommendation(s) in Costa Rica, I can foresee problems ahead if, for instance, the Council votes then to approve certain permanent protections for this and future gTLD rounds based on recommendations made by other than a formal GNSO Working Group.
I would think that a few of my Council colleagues would either share my concerns or have some of their own. If so, and assuming we agree that should this topic come up for a vote in Costa Rica our normal deferral process would be the worst thing we could do in terms of responsiveness to the GAC, then we need to find ways to get feedback on the actual recommendation(s) from all the community, in addition to input on the various options/issues they may have already given to the DT during the discussion process.
Cheers
Mary
|