[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] General Comments on the agenda
As usual, your comments are very insightful and merit further
discussion. The GA discussion of of WG-A's preliminary report is the
proper forum to raise these issues and open the dialog to the public,
and I strongly encourage you to continue doing so. I am sorry that due
to time constraints and a heavy workload you were unable to participate
more in WG-A's initial consultation (although most people are in the
same situation), however your comments at the time were incorporated
into WG-A's preliminary report. The GA discussion is a further good
opportunity to put your concerns and views before a far broader audience
and to initiate debate in relation thereto. The more clearly your
concerns are expressed and the more support they have, the better able
the NC will be to deal with them in any recommendations it may decide to
make to the ICANN Board. "Constructive" criticism is the backbone of
the consensus building process.
I would suggest that you lead the dialog in the WG-A RFC process in
respect of your concerns. I know that you are a respected leader in the
academic community and the champion of privacy rights. It would do a
great service to that cause and the others that you have raised if you
could clearly articulate your concerns in somewhat further detail so
that those who are not lawyers and/or who have not followed the process
in as great detail, can understand them. It would also be of great
assistance if you would further indicate the implications of your
concerns as you see them, and how you would resolve them, taking into
account that these may possibly be implemented and that there is an
international component to these issues that is beyond the U.S.
If you do this, you will give the GA a real chance to consider your
views and provide their input as well as providing the NC with the
opportunity to see if there is a consensus in the GA in relation thereto
which we can integrate into our recommendations.
While privacy and individual rights are important and cannot be
forgotten, they are but one part of the whole to be considered.
Your continued input is appreciated and will be considered when WG-A
prepares its final report to the NC at the end of the month.
Michael Froomkin wrote:
On the telco today someone (J.Sola?) said that there have been no
objections to the working group agenda. This is optimistic.
I object to absence of several items from the agenda, as I have been
for some time, in emails to several of the list and to many of the
1) The need to include a strong defense of rights of free expression in
the operative parts of the ADR policy.
2) The need to fix the procedural timetable to allow adequate time to
respond from *actual* notice.
3) The problem that the required representation rewards the ignorant at
the expense of the over-scrupulous (and requires a representation that
arguably would reverse the result in the Prince case).
4) The general issue of the (un)availability of judicial review in a
large fraction of cases where the original registrant loses the ADR.
5) In general, the details of the proposed procedures need to
... no one seems to focused on this.
What is the mechanism to get someone to pay attention to these issues?
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | firstname.lastname@example.org
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
--> It's hot here. <--
Group of Intellectual Property Practices
Facsimile: (613) 563-9231
This correspondence is intended for the person to whom it is addressed
and contains information that is confidential, and/or privileged to the
named recipient, and may be proprietary in nature. It is not to be used
by any other person and/or organization. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (collect)
and/or return e-mail.