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

[Alain Berranger]

It is a good sign that Avri finds the second part of the NPOC proposal of
relevance. Did not know Portugal had made a similar proposal. Avri, when
did that happen? Can you share the circumstance and/or more details, time
permitting?

Thanks, Alain

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis <
k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:

> The point is that we need to follow the process in this case as in every
> other case?.I don't understand why we need to bypass established processes
> only in this case.
>
> KK
>
> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:46:48 +0000
> To: "Avri org>" <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>
> Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk<mailto:
> k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>>, "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:
> pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:
> pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>, "EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org<mailto:
> EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org>" <ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org<mailto:
> ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org>>, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU<mailto:
> mueller at SYR.EDU>>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposed Revised Motion
>
> +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<mailto:
> 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<mailto: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
>



-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120313/2c11d944/attachment.html>