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

[Victoria Sheckler]

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 at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:08 AM
To: 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.

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 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg