[PC-NCSG] Olympic mark

[William Drake]

a,

Thanks, I guess that never really struck me in looking at comments since I wasn't looking for it. 

Language tweak make sense?

B

On Feb 22, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In making comments, most SGs indicate the process by which they arrived at the comments.  Registries often list a vote, e.g..
> 
> So yes, indicating the piece of our charter that we follow is indeed appropriate.  And in a world where even most of us, where 'us' == 'members of the NCSG', don't know what our charter says, we can't really expect others to know how we do things.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 22 Feb 2012, at 02:51, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> 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> <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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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