Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level

[Nicolas Adam]

I believe, as far as communicating our position goes, that the issue of
the International orgs asking for same treatment as IOC/RC should be
amongst the most important one we highlight as explanation for our
position. It goes to process and it goes to merit.

Does "puchback" means answering by option 1?

Nicolas

On 2/4/2012 2:02 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
> At 9:38 AM +0100 2/4/12, William Drake wrote:
>
>> So returning to KK's original message, I am for  Option 1: Recommend no
>> changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal, with an objection on process
>> and precedent grounds complimenting the substantive case.
>>
>> I've not been counting, but this seems consistent with a clear majority of
>> views expressed here to date.
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 8:20 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>
>>> If there is interest in joint NC / AtLarge pushback I'll certainly help
>>> advance the idea.
>>>
>> My guess is that NCUC would be willing to pursue this.  Anyone disagree?
>
> I concur with both of these.
>
> Dan
>
> PS:  Is it worth expressing a "second choice" in the case that Option 1 is
> rejected by the policy group?  Anybody for full ranked-choice voting here?
>
> Not to confuse things...  ;-)
>
>
> --
> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.