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
>
>
>
>