I find sometimes the arguments go round-and-round and maybe seeing something like this could help focus minds. We have guidance that outlines why we need a P/P service specification. This WG is about determining what ought to be included, at minimum. And with consensus. This goes to the idea of a best practice, otherwise called Copy Shamelessly. Fact is there isn't a whole lot of 'new' in this universe. So it would save us a lot of to-and-froing if we co-opt and use this one as a template, look at every clause and establish from them the attributes or principle we want to endorse for the [P/P] specification. If the clause fits we go with it. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@pir.org> wrote:
I received this link in email about five minutes ago because of an antiabuse matter that I’m working on. I wish that it had shown up earlier. Sampling language like this definitely will be useful in Reveal discussions and may help in our review of what’s “abuse” in the context of Relay.
https://www.namecheap.com/legal/whoisguard/whoisguard-agreement.aspx#8
Don
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg