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
>