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

[Darcy Southwell]

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 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.

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



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