[PC-NCSG] Olympic mark

[Brenden Kuerbis]

+1
On Feb 21, 2012 3:58 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120221/89a85cf9/attachment-0001.html>