Sorry, people, but I think what MM describes is precisely the main 
objective of NPOC's initiative -- an ineffectual NCSG. Please correct me 
and pull my ears if I am wrong.

Just flashed now in my mind: would Red Crescent join NPOC or NCSG? :)

--c.a.

On 11/09/2010 05:57 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> for me it's not so much an issue of protecting Red Cross brand - it's an issue of protecting consumers who might want to contribute to Red Cross from domain name scammer activity
>
> Of course, Rosemary. This NPOC issue has nothing whatsoever to do with one's policy position on Whois, trademarks or anything else. It is about the appropriate way in which these policy differences are reflected in the NCSG.
>
> NPOC has applied to create a (confusingly named) new constituency under the old constituency-silo mode. This would create an organizational "walled garden" for all nonprofits who support their views, and segregate NCSG into separate, competing (if not warring) factions who do not need to communicate with each other or work together. Now multiply this process tenfold times for every other policy difference that comes along. You can see where it leads: to a dead end, an ineffectual NCSG.
>

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
====================================
new/nuevo/novo e-mail: [log in to unmask]
====================================