[PC-NCSG] Olympic mark

[Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu]

Ditto as to Avri's and Robin's comments, those being the reasons I offered the draft language.
 
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 LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
To:NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Date: 2/22/2012 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark
I agree that it is generally a good idea when issuing a policy statement on behalf of a large group to include a short bit about the process that was used to reach this position.

It can help readers to understand who NCSG is and what is our process for issuing a statement, even if it is just a re-statement of what is in our charter, it is a good governance practice that we should adopt.   It wouldn't be anything controversial, but would provide more understanding to the readers of our policy statements.

My 2 cents,
Robin

On Feb 22, 2012, at 6:19 AM, William Drake wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120222/5a2128f2/attachment-0001.html>