[PC-NCSG] Draft Statement

[William Drake]

I guess I believe NC is divided on whether there is overreach on the geographical issue.  Which, inter alia, includes on .amazon, which may be why Amazon is a principal behind the statement.

In any event, as there was a 64-message thread on ncsg-discuss in March that to me indicates divided views on this whole terrain, I'd be cautious about a few of us deciding anything without a broader vetting.

Cheers

BD

On Jul 15, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Yet this does not mention .Amazon or the specific issue we are divided on.
> 
> It only talks about overreach on the geographical issue.
> 
> Avri
> 
> William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hi
> 
> My guess from previous discussions on ncsg-discuss would be th! at we don't have consensus on .amazon etc., procedural problems notwithstanding.  Does anyone believe otherwise?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bill 
> 
> 
> On Jul 15, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
>> 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:
>> 
>>> From: "King(Legal), Stacey" <stacek at amazon.com>
>>> Subject: Draft Statement
>>> Date: 14 July 2013 22:52:00 GMT+02:00
>>> To: "kiranm at markmonitor.com" <kiranm at markmonitor.com>, "harris at cabase.org.ar" <harris at cabase.org.ar>, "Neuman, Jeff (Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us)" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, "Burr, Becky (Becky.Burr at neustar.biz)" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>, "Laura Covington (lhc at yahoo-inc.com)" <lhc at yahoo-inc.com>, "Nick Wood, Valideus (nick.wood at valideus.com) (nick.wood at valideus.com)" <nick.wood at valideus.com>, "Frederick Felman (Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com)" <Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J. (brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com)" <brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com>, "avri at dotgay.com" <avri at dotgay.com>
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>> <statement.docx>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> 
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> Avri Doria

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130715/9a5167f1/attachment-0001.html>