[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark

[William Drake]

Hi

On Feb 19, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk<mailto:k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>>
>> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:44:00 +0000
>> Subject: Olympic mark
>> 
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> A quick question: am I correct in thinking that there is a uniform NCSG policy on the issue regarding the special protection sought by IOC and the Red Cross, re that they should not receive this type of protection? If, so I would like to present it as NCSG view rather than NCUC.
>> 
>> I recall Klaus agreeing with this view on the policy call last week, but I am not that certain and don't have the time to go through the MP3 recording.



So here we are again.

The matter has been discussed at some length for weeks now on the NCSG members list, and I don't recall that anyone has argued for special protections.  And previously (below) we were informed by its VC that for NPOC silence is assent, and there has been no subsequent statement to the contrary in response to my request for clarification.  It would seem to follow then that the largely uniform views expressed on the members list demonstrate consensus.

Bill

On Jan 16, 2012, at 4:24 PM, William Drake wrote:

> 
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>>  
>> Since I have seen so much support in the list, I have just sent a statement on behalf of NCUC supporting the comments on the RAA submitted by Milton and Wendy. I would like to thank them both for drafting these.
> 
> 
> Thanks KK.  One wishes though that it could have been a NCSG statement, since no opposition was raised on the members list or within the PC.
> 
> This exercise really does underscore the need for some clear understanding of how we're going to proceed with policy statements going forward.
> 
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Alain Berranger wrote:
> 
>> In general and personally, I would say that if NPOC members stay silent or do not have an argued position, then any NCSG policy that meets consensus by active and knowledgeable NCSG members is obviously endorsed by both constituencies.
> 
> 
> Alain, could you please clarify whether your personal view on this is shared by the rest of the NPOC members and/or leadership?  While some of us are not entirely comfortable with the silence is assent model, if we had a clear mandate and didn't have to worry about the risk of post hoc objections to or distancing from SG positions we would then be in a position to participate in ICANN more effectively.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120219/a4780f98/attachment.html>