Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed protection matrix - to be discussed during the next call

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri and Claudia,
thank you for your input. Can you please provide the group with alternative 
proposals that would address your concerns?

Thanks,
Thomas

Am 27.02.2013 um 12:25 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think this is well stated.  I think the task of this group is purely 
> centered on the Public Interest question.
> 
> What should we recommend in regard to the global Public Interest that 
> balances the various stakeholder interests.
> 
> As I am attending the WSIS+10 and IGF week in Paris, I won't be participating 
> at today's meeting, but will catch up later.
> 
> avri 
> 
> 
> On 27 Feb 2013, at 12:04, Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT wrote:
> 
>> Where the law mandates an open door, let’s recommend ICANN obey the law.  
>> Where the law does not mandate an open door but the public interest does, 
>> then let’s open that one door on that clearly defined rationale.  Different 
>> organizations will certainly pass through, we can even predict some.  But 
>> that organizations can satisfy entry criteria in different ways doesn’t 
>> justify opening different doors for different applicants (even if they have 
>> been cueing for longer).
>> 
>> May I suggest we define the rationale first, then from this consider how 
>> different organizations might satisfy that entry rationale?
>> 
> 
>