Well, with Amr's procedural concerns, and substantively with Avri. On 2014-04-28 5:31 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: > 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 >>> >