Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments

[William Drake]

On Jan 16, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:

> Dear all,
>  
> Since I have seen so much support in the list, I have just sent a statement on behalf of NCUC supporting the comments on the RAA submitted by Milton and Wendy. I would like to thank them both for drafting these.


Thanks KK.  One wishes though that it could have been a NCSG statement, since no opposition was raised on the members list or within the PC.

This exercise really does underscore the need for some clear understanding of how we're going to proceed with policy statements going forward.

On Dec 28, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Alain Berranger wrote:

> In general and personally, I would say that if NPOC members stay silent or do not have an argued position, then any NCSG policy that meets consensus by active and knowledgeable NCSG members is obviously endorsed by both constituencies.


Alain, could you please clarify whether your personal view on this is shared by the rest of the NPOC members and/or leadership?  While some of us are not entirely comfortable with the silence is assent model, if we had a clear mandate and didn't have to worry about the risk of post hoc objections to or distancing from SG positions we would then be in a position to participate in ICANN more effectively.

Thanks,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120116/3f731a51/attachment-0001.html>