On Thu, November 17, 2011 9:57 am, Alain Berranger wrote: > .... Recent statements made on NCSG-Discuss list are literal > trials of intentions (like we are recruiting new members for voting > purposes only! or if our chair remains silent on NCSG, it means this and > that...). I would not dispute that such comments can be interpreted as "trials of intentions" -- that's exactly what they are, and as the author of such comments I confirm that I meant them that way. There is quite simply an impression floating around NCUC that NPOC exists as a sort of "one-issue" group devoted overwhelmingly to advancing maximalist trademark policy at ICANN (in opposition to NCUC's historical consensus on these issues -- we spent a lot of time and effort fighting CSG/BC and IPC on trademark issues, looking for a more balanced approach -- I speak as an individual trademark holder, myself), and ultimately wouldn't care much about anything else, and may be fairly ruthless in its efforts to advance such policy (as other advocates for trademark maximalism tend to be). There is also suspicion that ICANN staff or others sympathetic to CSG/IPC agendas (and correspondingly unsympathetic to NCUC positions) may have put these folks up to it, as a specific strategy to dilute, distract, confuse or usurp NCSG policy in these matters. After all, as IPC is now part of CSG, it seems that is where such advocates ought to belong, in the current GNSO taxonomy. As a factual matter, if these impressions are incorrect then one would do well to confront them on the merits and shed a little light on the matter, because these impressions have been there from early on. In the absence of such communications, the suspicions simply grow deeper over time, short of tangible action demonstrating something different (such as a productive EC meeting -- such things are important for other members to know, even if we did not participate directly). Given NPOC's trademark-related positions, perhaps you may think of this as a branding issue, one where just as a practical matter NPOC's "PR department" needs to do some damage control. Because the damage is real, regardless of whether it is based on substance or not. Dan -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.