I agree with Kathy. I don¹t recall that we came to an agreement on this specific language removal (although I believe it was discussed at some point). Without consensus, we should not remove the language at this point. That aside, in order to create a sustainable accreditation program, we should include the ³but not limited to² language to ensure that P/P providers can address concerns based in local law without being in violation of the accreditation agreement. Thanks, Darcy From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 8:07 AM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] III.C words "but not limited to" need to go back in too Hi All, As we work to close the document, I would like to point out another change that was proposed, but not discussed or accepted. It's the deletion of the words "but not limited to" in the opening of III.C. This was proposed by Val, not discussed on our call, and not accepted by the group. I would like to ask that the initial words ("including but not limited to"), in the draft for so long, be continued... as they are standard drafting language --- and do not limit the broad sets of responses so many supported today. Best, Kathy III.C. Disclosure can be reasonably refused, for reasons consistent with the general policy stated herein, including, but not limited to any of the following: *** _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg