<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Ariel (and Councillors): <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I recommend the attached amendment / clarification because the current version opens the council up for criticism about its approach and respect for stability and security issues, i.e., puts the Council in a bad light.. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The reasoning can be described in the timeline of events: </div><div class=""><ol class="MailOutline"><li class="">The Council requested that the Board defer the implementation of Guidelines v4.0</li><li class="">The Board wrote saying there might be stability / security issues so let’s bifurcate the implementation</li><li class="">The Council (in this letter) says “ok”</li></ol><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">To any reader not keeping up with this, one can infer that the Council made this recommendation without considering potential stability / security effects. That is why it is important for the Council to re-aver that this was investigated and there are none of these issues. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">When authors of the IDN EPDP Charter approached some councillors with the suggestion that v4.0 be deferred as a way to prevent conflicting IDN standards and also to economize on the use of community volunteer time, the first question of the councillors was whether there were stability or security issues addressed in the new guidelines. When the recommendation was presented to the council, the first questions were about stability and security issues. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So I think it should be reflected on the record that the Council and its SG&C stakeholders take stability and security issues seriously, as a matter of first inquiry, and would not make a recommendation without that sort of review.The suggested amendment corrects this ‘hole’ in the record.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think it is unfortunate that the Board did not trust its community experts on the issue but we are where we are and should move ahead. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Please let me know if the suggestion is not clear or if I can offer addition information. Thanks in advance for considering it. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best regards,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Kurt</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""></div></div></body></html>