<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css">body {word-wrap: break-word; background-color:#ffffff;}</style>
</head>
<body>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px">I appreciate the way Avri has articulated a clear, easy to explain and principled response to this issue. We should all now sing from that hymnal<br>
<br>
<font color="#cc0000">Milton Mueller<br>
</font><font color="#cc0000">Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
</font></div>
<br>
<br>
-----Original message-----<br>
<blockquote style="; border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;">
<div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px"><b>From: </b>Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org><b><br>
To: </b>"avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org><b><br>
Cc: </b>Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>, "pc-ncsg@ipjustice.org" <pc-ncsg@ipjustice.org>, "EC-NCUC@ipjustice.org" <ec-ncuc@ipjustice.org>, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu><b><br>
Sent: </b>Mon, Mar 12, 2012 23:47:12 GMT+00:00<b><br>
Subject: </b>Re: [PC-NCSG] FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposed Revised Motion<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">+1. If the community does not require ICANN to follow its stated processes and honor the so-called 'bottom-up' process, then who will?<br>
<br>
Robin<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
<br>
> Thanks for posting this.<br>
> <br>
> I again recommend:<br>
> <br>
> Remember IOC & RC are already protected. Maximally protected. They do not need further protection.<br>
> <br>
> Defer the motion because it is illegitimate for the g-council to vote before the end of a comment period.<br>
> <br>
> Amend the motion to indicate that a change can only occur if the Board agrees to restart the application clock. To make such a substantive change to an ongoing process at this late date is fundamentally unfair to applicants, especially noncommercial applicants
or community applicants.<br>
> <br>
> Support the idea brought up by both Portugal and NPOC that giving preferential treatment to these two without full consideration being given to the UN + 9 is prejudicial. If this its a serious concern for ICANN and the GNSO, then initiate a PDP process on
reserved names.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> avri<br>
> <br>
> Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk> wrote:<br>
> <br>
>> Dear all,<br>
>> <br>
>> Please find attached the latest version of the motion regarding the IOC<br>
>> and Red Cross names that we will be discussing tomorrow.<br>
>> <br>
>> Thanks<br>
>> <br>
>> KK<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PC-NCSG mailing list<br>
> PC-NCSG@ipjustice.org<br>
> <a href="http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg" target="_BLANK">http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg</a><br>
> <br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>