On Jul 3, 2014, at 6:11 AM, Evan Leibovitch <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 2 July 2014 23:54, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>  
> why isn't the RC itself spearheading this?
> 
> Uh, it did, when the time for it to speak was appropriate.
> 
> At the working group level where this issue was dealt with (and in which I was also involved), the ICRC was a very active participant (though less aggressive than the IOC). It joined the process when it was appropriate, then (also unlike the IOC) stopped lobbying and let the community engage, having said all it thought needed to be said.
> 
> What were you expecting? Where is the part of the process they failed to engage? From what i could tell, they followed the process that they thought was appropriate.

And when they didn’t get everything they wanted at the speed they wanted it, they decided that following the process---bottom up community engagement via a constituency and the GNSO---was not for them and turned instead to direct lobbying of the Board and GAC.  This is pretty typical big money lobbyist behavior, and it showed a real disregard for ‘the community’ and undermined the model.  

Bill