in favor of NCSG supporting this statement rgds, McTim On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > i meant to include to discuss list. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> > *Subject: **[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Draft Statement* > *Date: *15 July 2013 06:23:34 GMT+02:00 > *To: *NCSG-Policy Policy <[log in to unmask]> > > FYI. > > Are we interested in supporting this? > > I wasn't at the meeting and don't know if anyone was from NCSG. > > avri > > Begin forwarded message: > > * > * > > All,**** > ** ** > Attached please find the statement we discussed tonight with the couple of > modifications recommended. For those of you who could not make it, we are > happy to catch up tomorrow to discuss in more detail. It is in no way the > final draft, but is intended as an initial draft to refine across all > constituencies.**** > ** ** > In sum, this would be a joint statement by all the GNSO, with individual > statements that each constituency can/will prepare as they see fit to > address other issues. We discussed whether things like sensitive > strings/category 1 should be included, but I think as we get into other > issues it becomes too difficult to find unanimity. The geo issue appears > to be the one issue everyone agrees is problematic and an overreach, and > indicative of what could happen to any applicant.**** > ** ** > Please take a look and circulate your comments after review with your > constituencies.**** > ** ** > Thank you!**** > ** ** > Stacey King**** > Nick Wood**** > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > [log in to unmask] > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > >