This has been a great discussion and thank you all for your contributions. Great points have been raised by all of you and, in particular, I think that the most crucial one is the kind of precedent this whole process will set, both from an institutional and substantive point of view. Both issues have been raised by myself and others, but the majority doesn't seem to think this as a problem either due to the fact that they are focused on this issue alone or because they don't see the GAC involvement as a 'tangible' threat to multistakeholder governance.

I will convey that the majority (NCUC) of this group is against any special treatment – my fear is, that we – NCUC – will be the only group going towards this. So, the question becomes: if consensus is achieved towards some sort of protection (which I suspect it will), do we engage in trying to water down these protections or not?

@Evan: I think NCUC (and certainly myself) would like to see an ALAC and NCUC collaboration on this front. I think that a joint statement might be of value to begin with and we can put this as an agenda item when we meet in Costa Rica.

Thanks

KK

From: Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 19:02:06 +0000
To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level

At 9:38 AM +0100 2/4/12, William Drake wrote:

So returning to KK's original message, I am for  Option 1: Recommend no
changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal, with an objection on process
and precedent grounds complimenting the substantive case.

I've not been counting, but this seems consistent with a clear majority of
views expressed here to date.

On Feb 3, 2012, at 8:20 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

If there is interest in joint NC / AtLarge pushback I'll certainly help
advance the idea.


My guess is that NCUC would be willing to pursue this.  Anyone disagree?


I concur with both of these.

Dan

PS:  Is it worth expressing a "second choice" in the case that Option 1 is
rejected by the policy group?  Anybody for full ranked-choice voting here?

Not to confuse things...  ;-)


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.