[PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of work coming onto the GNSO table.

[Kathy Kleiman]

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>