[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Letter on IGO protections

[Paul Keating]

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 at 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 at 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-20jul15-en.pdf.
>> 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 at icann.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp