I agree with Kathy.

I don’t 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 “but not limited to” 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

_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg