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 >> >