Well, with Amr's procedural concerns, and substantively with Avri.


On 2014-04-28 5:31 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
> I agree with both Amr and Avri.
>
> Nicolas
>
> On 2014-04-28 4:33 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think I object to spec 13.  I think it is unnecessary and counter to
>> previous policy.
>>
>> And if it needs changing, then it needs a PDP and those who want to get
>> the spec 13 exemption can either wait for the policy or use RSEP 
>> processes.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 28-Apr-14 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I know we’ve discussed this briefly a couple of weeks ago, and although
>>> I don’t see the harm in the policy itself…, I am more than a little
>>> uncomfortable with how it has come about.
>>>
>>> This, thus far, is going to be the only motion on the agenda of the 
>>> next
>>> Council meeting.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> *From: *Thomas Rickert <[log in to unmask] 
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> *Subject: **[council] draft motion - response to NGPC letter - Rec
>>>> 19/Spec 13*
>>>> *Date: *April 28, 2014 at 9:35:11 PM GMT+2
>>>> *To: *GNSO Council List <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, GNSO Secretariat
>>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>> please find attached a draft motion in response to the NGPC's 
>>>> letter with
>>>> respect to Specification 13.
>>>>
>>>> We may need to continue our discussion but one clear message is 
>>>> that it is
>>>> important to respond in a timely way to the deadline set by the NGPC.
>>>> Therefore, any associated motion must meet the documents and motions
>>>> deadline today for the upcoming GNSO Council telephone conference.
>>>>
>>>> The proposed motion encompasses the following messages, which I 
>>>> have heard
>>>> and read so far:
>>>>
>>>> - There is an inconsistency between Recommendation 9 and Spec 13.
>>>> - There is an understanding for and recognition of the .BRAND 
>>>> Registries'
>>>> request.
>>>> - The Council should respond to the NGPC's request and - in case an
>>>> inconsistency is existent - make a constructive proposal on how to
>>>> deal with
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, I have included additional clauses to state that the
>>>> Council does
>>>> not oppose the implementation of all of Spec 13 now, but requests 
>>>> that the
>>>> Board make sure that appropriate safeguards are put in place in future
>>>> rounds. Also, I have included a clause on
>>>> the Council reserving the right to initiate a PDP if need be.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this is an acceptable compromise and I am more than happy to
>>>> discuss
>>>> this further.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>