NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Carlos A. Afonso" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Carlos A. Afonso
Date:
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:06:13 -0300
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
In practice, MM is right in suspecting this would not work given ICANN's
track record. So should we go for [1], period?

--c.a.

On 07/24/2012 09:39 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> There's the rub. If sourced correctly. No way I trust ICANN staff or Board to handle this properly.
> I still maintain that the expectation that a study is going to settle this is naïve.
> 
> I would actually be interested to see Option 5 - settle once and for all whether there is any legal obligation, by treaty or statute, for the IOC and ICRC names. I believe this would eliminate the IOC claim and greatly diminish the IGO claim.
> 
> I agree.  An independent study, not by the GC.  Positions are entrenched and nobody's convincing each other, so an additional input could be useful if sourced correctly.
> 
> Bill
> 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2