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]>
> 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]>, GNSO Secretariat <[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
> 
>