Mary, Phil and Petter. It seems to me test there are now a number of "groups" acting under the assumption that they have been tasked with the authority to determine this issue and to provide "solutions". I am not clear if this letter is from the same or from a different group than the "small group" (whatever that is in reality). Can you please let us know whether this letter is written by a group acting under the ambit of authority? Finally I am growing quite perturbed by the apparent lack of legal support for the WG. We have, following advice from Staff, provided a narrow request for funds to obtain a qualified legal opinion. However, I have not seen any apparent progress on a request for funding or any authorization to retain counsel on this important issue. We are approaching a point where conspiratorially minded persons might think the failure to authorize competent legal advisors is an effort to eliminate the legal basis for what is seemingly forming as a consensus in favor of a political approach which is not founded upon legal principals. I for one surely hope this is not the case. I therefore reiterated my requests that : 1. The authorization be obtained for a competent qualified legal advisor to assist the WG regarding immunity issues ( a copy Of the actual funding request must be circulated to the WG): and, 2. Disclosure of the members of the now multiple groups apparently "working" on the same task assigned to this WG - namely the "small working group" and this who worked in the preparation of the letter referenced below. Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On Jul 22, 2015, at 8:54 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Why would this letter have any meaning whatsoever? This PDP is supposed to be based on data, research, law, etc. The IGOs appear to be planning to just put out a position statement or proposal, without any data, research, law, etc., as just a means of circumventing the formal process (this very PDP) that ICANN has put in place to make sure that all stakeholders are represented.
They even made the questionable statement that this issue is "becoming increasingly critical as time goes by" -- where's the data/evidence to substantiate that assertion? IGOs have been treated just like everybody else for the past 30 years, and the UDRP has existed for more than 15 years, and the world hasn't come to an end.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: Dear WG members,
We would like to draw your attention to the following letter that was just sent by the OECD Secretary-General to ICANN’s CEO Fadi Chehade: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gurria-to-chehade-20jul.... You will see that the letter references the recent Paris meeting that Phil and Petter are expecting to follow up on with the NGPC, GAC Chair and other GNSO representatives. In light of the GAC’s recent Buenos Aires Communique that noted Dublin as a key milestone for resolving the overall issue of IGO protections, we thought you might find this letter of interest.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp