[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] III.C words "but not limited to" need to go back in too

Darcy Southwell darcy.southwell at endurance.com
Tue Apr 21 19:56:49 UTC 2015

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.


From:  Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Date:  Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 8:07 AM
To:  "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at 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.


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 at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150421/6d01d21a/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list