I attached it to the email I sent.  I don't think it has a url home yet.
 when it gets one i will let the list know.

as for including you, not up to me.  at this point it is up to NCSG to
discuss and come up with suggestions for amendments.  I have no idea
whether or if anyone is going to do so.  I was not planning to lead such
an effort, but will follow it.

BTW, I expect the volunteer call for the WG to go out soon.  Be sure to
volunteer if you care.  I don't plan to as I am already overextending.

As for the other KK, i don't not understand why he dropped out, but
anyone is free to pass it on to him.

avri


On 06-Jun-14 16:08, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Avri,
> Could you please send a link around to the draft charter and include me
> in any calls scheduled to discuss?  I also think we should cc
> Konstantinos as another person in our midst who has spent many years on
> the UDRP.
> Tx,
> Kathy :
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> Thank you very much the update and action taken in regard to the
>> discussion held during the NCSG monthly call
>> we can review the charter and work on requesting amendments.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2014-06-06 6:08 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     While the PDP was approved unanimously, we delayed the vote on the
>>     charter.
>>
>>     Why.
>>
>>     In discussing the PDP itself: it discusses the possible extension
>>     of the
>>     UDRP and URS to support IGOs and IGNOs, but also allows for either the
>>     creation of a new process if it would be best to leave those alone, or
>>     for no mechanism at all.  So, as requested by the previous WG and
>>     approved by both the last council and the Board, and now this council,
>>     we will have a PDP on the issue of extending the UDRP and URS, but
>>     with
>>     no obligation to do so.  And I would say that the GNSO is not of one
>>     mind on the hoped for outcome.  NCSG is not alone in its doubts,
>>     but we
>>     do need to tackle the subject.
>>
>>     I requested the delay on the charter vote, using the 'the SG needs
>>     more
>>     discussion' reason.  I also made it clear that I had not been able to
>>     properly explain the issue to the SG. I got no trouble for that,
>>     in fact
>>     people from several SG supported the call for a delay.
>>
>>     I think we need to review the charter carefully as that is where
>>     the top
>>     of all the slippery slopes is to be found.  We can offer amendments to
>>     the charter if we have any.
>>
>>     avri
>>
>>
>