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

[Stephanie Perrin]

I agree.
Steph

On 2016-01-18 14:13, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160118/643286be/attachment.html>