I agree with both Amr and Avri. Nicolas On 2014-04-28 4:33 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > 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 >>