Seen some discussion of this in other forums. At best, it is a "put up or shut up" challenge to the IP interests: propose something specific and acceptable to you and live with it (for a change) as opposed to appearing to agree and then going outside ICANN "(e.g., to US government) to block it. At worst it gives them a privileged position to make the proposals. Either way, after the group's recommendations come out we will have to comment and scream if they are bad. > -----Original Message----- > From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC- > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:38 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] trademark lobby still dominating discussion at > ICANN > > Robin, > > There were dire expressions of concern by the IPC during the GNSO-GAC > meeting (and some interesting parallels with governments' views on > geographic---or conceivably related to geographic---names) but > otherwise I don't recall any such discussion. I presume this is a > board response to some back channel discussions. Obviously it'd make > sense to ask for a seat at the table and transparency/reporting in its > operations. > > Bill > > On Mar 9, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > > > > Has there been any discussion of this IRT on the GNSO Counsel? How > > do we make sure that balanced perspectives make their way onto the > > new "ITR Team"? > >