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
>> 
>