Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 |
Date: |
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:24:36 +0200 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi,
I will pass on this initial message: most of those responding prefer the first option.
I will also pass on the possible rewrite of the other option suggested on the list.
At this point, I think the group may still be refining the questions to send them further afield.
I appreciate all the input.
avri
On 24 Jul 2012, at 15:06, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> 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
>>
>
|
|
|