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
>>