[PC-NCSG] Olympic mark

[Konstantinos Komaitis]

I would agree and share the same questions with Bill here.

Thanks

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building,
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org<http://www.komaitis.org>

From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: ???????, 22 ??????????? 2012 7:51 ??
To: <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>
Cc: NCSG-Policy
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark

Hi

I'm not opposed if people think this is a good idea, but have a couple questions:

We'd basically be saying that oh BTW we follow our charter.  Shouldn't people assume that anyway, in which case why are we restating it?  Doesn't it just call external attention to the possibility of internal issues?  Do any other SGs do this?

On Feb 21, 2012, at 9:29 PM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>> <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu<mailto: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".

"Accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process" could be understood by someone to mean that PC members are bound to vote in line with the (rough consensus?) "outcome" on the list.  The charter says the PC is responsible for discussing its positions on the list, and that councilors should seek input from members on Council matters, but not that it is bound by member sentiments.  Moreover, member discussions may not yield an identifiable outcome.  To avoid misunderstanding, might it be better to say something like "the relevant position or comment takes into account any outcomes of the discussion process"?

Just wondering,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120222/c9eae6a7/attachment-0001.html>