[council] Nominations for IRT Participants

[William Drake]

Hi,

Just for the record, I at least did not suggest that the board's  
deadline be disregarded.   I suggested that the turn around time on  
the call for nominations be more than one day, e.g. the deadline for  
nominations could have been Monday instead of Friday, in which case  
NCUC would have had the weekend to go through a proper constituency  
process on a nomination.  An extension of one working day surely would  
not thrown off the whole calendar.

BD

On Mar 16, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

>
> Tim,
>
> I do not believe it would be appropriate for the IPC to decide
> unilaterally to disregard the Board's deadlines.   Perhaps you could
> direct your question to Rita and/or Bruce?
>
> K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> ]
> On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 12:22 PM
> To: council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
>
>
> Why are the deadlines given by the Board any more written in stone  
> than
> those in the Bylaws? The latter have been missed on almost every PDP
> ever done. Doesn't the argument that it is more important for the work
> to be done right, have integrity, and instill confidence just as
> important here?
>
> I agree that the IP and Business community shoul have their legitimate
> concerns addressed before the new gTLD process can move forward. But
> there is nothing to gain in the long term by a mad rush to an end game
> that doesn't work well or as expected.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
> From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette at cov.com>
> Date: Thu, March 12, 2009 8:43 am
> To: <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Unfortunately, extending the deadline is simply not possible given the
> deadlines provided by the Board in the resolution and the work that
> needs to be done.  Moreover, a large number of people from almost  
> every
> constituency and some of the ACs had already contacted IPC members  
> about
> participating and had been provided similar information to that set
> forth below.  I posted the message below in an effort to provide the
> information for dissemination to those who had not already contacted  
> IPC
> members.  As for the Board's intent, I believe the language of the
> resolution speaks for itself.
>
> Kristina
>
>
>
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:21 AM
> To: Rosette, Kristina
> Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: Re: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
>
>
>
> Hi Kristina,
>
> Thanks for this information, which I've just passed on to NCUC.
> However, I would strongly suggest that we extend the deadline to  
> Monday
> or Tuesday.  Notification at 11pm on the 11th of a 13th noon  
> deadline is
> a very unworkable turnaround time if we are serious about getting  
> strong
> applicants and engagement from all constituencies, as the board  
> intends.
> Some people might not be reading mail today or be able to determine so
> quickly whether the workload fits with their schedule etc.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Bill
>
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
>
> All,
> Because we've received a number of inquiries about nominations for IRT
> participants, we thought it would be helpful to provide the  
> information
> below.
> Nominations for IRT participants should be sent to Steve Metalitz (IPC
> President), Ute, Cyril or me.  Steve's email address is not on the
> Council page or the IPC home page so please contact me off-list if you
> would like it.
> The nominations must include:
> 1.  The full name and contact information of the nominee (including  
> the
> name of her/his employer and title);
> 2.  The ICANN Geographic Region(s) in which the nominee is a citizen  
> and
> is a resident;
> 3.  Identification of the nominee's knowledge, experience, and  
> expertise
> in the fields of trademark, consumer protection, or competition law,  
> and
> the interplay of trademarks and the domain name system;
> 4.  Identification of any financial ownership or senior
> management/leadership interest of the nominee in registries,  
> registrars
> or other entities that are stakeholders or interested parties in ICANN
> or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other
> arrangement;
> 5.  State if the nominee would be representing any other party or  
> person
> through her/his IRT participation and, if so, identify that party or
> person; and
> 6.  State if the nominee submitted public comments on the first  
> draft of
> the DAG that provided proposed solutions to the trademark issues  
> and, if
> so, attach a copy of those comments.
> We must receive all nominations not later than Friday, 13 March, at  
> noon
> EDT.  Because of the deadlines set forth by the Board in the  
> resolution,
> it will be exceedingly difficult to consider any nominations submitted
> after that point.  Also, based on very preliminary time lines, IRT
> participants should expect to spend at least 15 full business days
> (excluding travel time) in the next two months on the team's work.
> Kristina