Hi,

From the discussion on the CCWG call we just had, it sounds like the
solution is for the base contract for gTLDS and the RAA to be changed. 
In terms of the gTLD contract this is something that the current gTLD
subsequent procedures should take up as a policy issue.

If the PDP decides to change the base contract and PICS are outside of
the mission, then the contract that the PDP recommends could not include
PICS.

Not sure how to handle the change to the RAA in this case, but it sounds
like that would need to be changed , so the next time a new RAA was
introduced, then the grandfathering would end.

avri

On 05-Apr-16 16:31, avri doria wrote:
> On 05-Apr-16 11:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> Avri: The language about what was acceptable to NCSG was suggested, and comments sent to the list to see if people agreed. 
> I think the issue is borderline.
>
> The group decided on grandfathering the current contract and was not
> explicit that this was only for the term and not for renewal.
>
>
>> Avri and Ed: I am focused exclusively on the mission limitations language in Article 1. To provide feedback on that, you do not need to read every little detail in the 200+ page bylaws, e.g., how the escalation process works or how a SCWG is formed. Are you able to give me a sense of whether the mission has been limited properly or whether Appendix G exemptions are too broad?
> I needed to spend some time reading and comparing language something I
> had not done at that time.
>
> avri
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus