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 >