Re: [ga] General Comments on the agenda

[Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>]

Jesus!  What a boatload of condescending crap! from mr cohen who 
really ought to be writing under his own account.



>Michael:
>
>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.
>perspective.
>
>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.
>
>Jonathan Cohen
>
>
>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
>doing
>for some time, in emails to several of the list and to many of the
>participants:
>
>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
>very
>large fraction of cases where the original registrant loses the ADR.
>
>5) In general, the details of the proposed procedures need to
>scrutinized
>... 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    |   froomkin@law.tm
>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.   <--
>
>
>
>
>--
>Shapiro Cohen
>Group of Intellectual Property Practices
>Ottawa, Canada
>
>Telephone: (613)232-5300
>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.

****************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet            Index to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)           The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
cook@cookreport.com                    What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
****************************************************************