Without necessarily agreeing with Alain's preference not to discuss the reserved names issue, I think Avri's framing of it as a question about "policy vs. implementation" may be acceptable to both parties. The IOC/Red Cross request is just one of many, many examples of this blurry  line and how fatal it can be to the supposedly bottom up policy development process, so perhaps the discussion of the board could be redefined as that, and the reserved names issue could be brought up as one example. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:32 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] 2 March deadline for NCSG proposed discussion
> topics for Costa Rica meetings (1) NCSG with Board (2) Public Forum
> 
> On 1 Mar 2012, at 20:55, Alain Berranger wrote:
> 
> > The third topic has been flogged to death already
> 
> I thought the isue was still very much alive.
> 
> > and will occupy much space in San José as is - also what new elements that
> have not been discussed before can be brought forward by NCUC?
> 
> This is a chance for the NCUC, as well as the NPOC, to make their views
> known to the board without the filtering of consensus based language.
> And a chance for the Board to have answer to how it found it within its by-
> laws purview to unilaterally change the policy without consulting the GNSO.
> 
> avri