[PC-NCSG] Olympic mark

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think including such a statement is a good thing.

avri

On 21 Feb 2012, at 15:29, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:

> I agree, but would also suggest that the PC consider including the following statement (or something similar) in all of our comments submitted on behalf of the SG:
>  
> "Positions and comments of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) are arrived at after discussion among the membership, and the NCSG Policy Committee determines through rough consensus that the relevant position or comment accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process. The NCSG Policy Committee is made up of elected officers from all constituencies within the NCSG".
>  
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
>  
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> >>>
> From:	William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> To:	Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> CC:	NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> Date:	2/21/2012 2:47 AM
> Subject:	Re: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark
> 
> On Feb 20, 2012, at 8:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Is NPOC declaring itself out of the PC for the time it takes it to rearrange its house.  Or is it declaring some sort of 2 vote veto on any and all possible NCSG Policy decisions until it finishes its reorganization and elections?
>> 
>> But maybe I misunderstood what you wrote.
> 
> NCSG had an election, a PC operating on rough consensus was formed accordingly, and the positions it takes after community consultation represent the SG.  To say that no NCSG position can be adopted until some indeterminate future date when some invisible folks decide to join the polity would be undemocratic, and members would be unlikely to happily accept this disenfranchisement and disempowerment.  I don't think the PC should attempt to arrogate to itself this power.
> 
> BD
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg