[PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of work coming onto the GNSO table.
Kathy Kleiman
kathy
Mon Jan 18 21:13:12 EET 2016
Hi Amr,
I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why
we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG comments
said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC were Not valid
- that there was no way we should review New gTLD protections because a)
still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of the tree. Why should we
evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate the health of the entire
tree? /Why is the world are we, the NCSG, introducing this motion?
/On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on
at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has
professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to
participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who
are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and
self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do
to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump off...
Best regards,
Kathy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160118/e5f91480/attachment.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list