[PC-NCSG] FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposed Revised Motion

[Robin Gross]

+1.  If the community does not require ICANN to follow its stated processes and honor the so-called 'bottom-up' process, then who will?

Robin


On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Thanks for posting this.
> 
> I again recommend:
> 
> Remember IOC & RC are already protected. Maximally protected. They do not need further protection.
> 
> Defer the motion because it is illegitimate for the g-council to vote before the end of a comment period.
> 
> Amend the motion to indicate that a change can only occur if the Board agrees to restart the application clock. To make such a substantive change to an ongoing process at this late date is fundamentally unfair to applicants, especially noncommercial applicants or community applicants.
> 
> Support the idea brought up by both Portugal and NPOC that giving preferential treatment to these two without full consideration being given to the UN + 9 is prejudicial. If this its a serious concern for ICANN and the GNSO, then initiate a PDP process on reserved names.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Please find attached the latest version of the motion regarding the IOC
>> and Red Cross names that we will be discussing tomorrow.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> KK
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>