Hi Milton, Kathy,

Would you be able to suggest exact phrasing to use?

Tapani

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:35:42PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> I STRONGLY support asking this.
> 
> I would avoid mentioning specific contracted parties, however - unless they force you to by asking for a specific example. Raising a specific example con get you involved in specific policy issues on the merits, rather than dealing with what is the real crux of the question, which is how PICs can be used to contradict or set aside the GNSO policy process and consensus policies. Stay focused on the principle, don't get into a IGO names debate or a copyright debate. 
> 
> Great suggestion, Kathy
> 
> --MM
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> > Of Kathy Kleiman
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 11:59 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: ICANN Copenhagen, questions from and to the Board
> > 
> > Tapani,
> > 
> > I think we should also consider asking the Board about the PICs (Public
> > Interest Commitments) submitted by the New gTLD Registries. In some
> > important cases, these PICs contradict, set aside and even bypass Consensus
> > policy a) made or b) currently being made. So Minds + Machines, for
> > example, is blocking all IGO names at the second level of its New gTLDs --
> > although there is a full-blown GNSO Policy Development Process WG looking
> > at that very issue!
> > 
> > I think we should be asking the Board about these PICs and raising concerns.
> > 
> > Best, Kathy