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: ***
I would second this proposal. Stephanie On 15-04-21 11:07 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
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
+1 On Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 10:34 AM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
I would second this proposal. Stephanie On 15-04-21 11:07 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
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
I disagree with your statement that the proposal was not accepted by the group. I, for one, prefer, Val's approach for the reasons discussed in prior calls re trying to balance certainty with discretion. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:08 AM To: 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
I also distinctly remember discussing this language. I was not on today's call, but it has been discussed. Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Victoria Sheckler <Victoria.Sheckler@riaa.com> wrote:
I disagree with your statement that the proposal was not accepted by the group. I, for one, prefer, Val's approach for the reasons discussed in prior calls re trying to balance certainty with discretion.
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:08 AM To: 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
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
“But not limited to” is an important inclusion that should not be deleted. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Darcy Southwell Date: Tuesday 21 April 2015 21:56 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] III.C words "but not limited to" need to go back in too 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<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 8:07 AM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
I would second this suggestion. Stephanie Perrin PS I am travelling and may experience some difficulties connecting on today's call. On 2015-04-22 4:56, Darcy Southwell wrote:
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 <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 8:07 AM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
Agree with Kathy and Stephanie on this Holly On 28 Apr 2015, at 6:28 am, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
I would second this suggestion. Stephanie Perrin PS I am travelling and may experience some difficulties connecting on today's call.
On 2015-04-22 4:56, Darcy Southwell wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hello everyone, Just to confirm that this was indeed reinstated and is reflected as a bracketed option in the 23 April draft Initial Report, as part of Annex E (i.e. the illustrative disclosure framework). Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 17:29 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] III.C words "but not limited to" need to go back in too
Agree with Kathy and Stephanie on this
Holly On 28 Apr 2015, at 6:28 am, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
I would second this suggestion. Stephanie Perrin PS I am travelling and may experience some difficulties connecting on today's call.
On 2015-04-22 4:56, Darcy Southwell wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://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
participants (9)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Darcy Southwell -
Holly Raiche -
Kathy Kleiman -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Mary Wong -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Stephanie Perrin -
Victoria Sheckler