<p>I like this revision, especially linking to the AoC.</p>
<p>On Sep 27, 2011 8:32 AM, "William Drake" <<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sep 27, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Hi,<br>
> ><br>
> > I am against the inclusion of the preferential treatment paragraph. I think we should just make our points and demand they talk to use without this, which seems to me to be weaken the argument.<br>
><br>
> What about this as a compromise. Replace<br>
><br>
> However, NCUC is concerned that certain GNSO stakeholders were provided access to drafts of GAC Communiques and permitted to help shape the views of the entire GAC, while other stakeholders, including NCUC, were not afforded such preferential access and opportunity to directly dialogue with the GAC on their views on the UDRP. The preferential treatment of certain stakeholders consulted in the process of drafting the GAC Communique is troubling to noncommercial users and appears to undermine ICANN's multi-stakeholder model of checks and balances and its ability to serve the public interest. Given this, we would like to reiterate the main arguments made in our comments submitted[1] during the public comment period concerning the UDRP for your consideration:<br>
><br>
> With this:<br>
><br>
> However, NCUC is concerned that certain GNSO stakeholders were provided special access to drafts of GAC Communiques and permitted to help shape the views of the GAC, while other stakeholders, including NCUC, were not. This asymmetry in the process of drafting the GAC Communique seems contrary to both the core tenets of ICANN's multistakeholder model of checks and balances and its public interest obligations under the Affirmation of Commitments.<br>
><br>
> In this context, we would like to reiterate the main arguments made in our comments submitted[1] during the public comment period concerning the UDRP:<br>
><br>
</p>