ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Objectives description

  • To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Objectives description
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:41:21 +0100


I did not see 1a in what you contributed.  I saw 1 as establishing the criteria 
and mechanisms and 2 as reviewing existing practice.  the DAG proposal did not 
seem to to me to fall into either of those categories.

I think we need both 1a (call it 2 if you like) and 2 (call it 3 if you like).  
We need to review implementation proposals to determine whether they meet 
criteria established in 1 and we need to review current practice.  I hesitate 
to consider a proposal made by the implementation team as established practice. 
 tha might be a bad precedent. 


On 7 Feb 2010, at 14:20, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>>> Objective 2: to examine current gTLD contracts and practices approved 
>>> by ICANN staff and determine if any of them are outside the current
>>> policy framework regarding vertical integration, and, if so make
>>> recommendations as to how to respond to these exceptions.
>> I think we need an objective 1a: That asks:
>> 1a. Does the recommendation made in DAGv3 meet the criteria of that clear
>> direction.  If not, make recommendations on how those criteria can be met.
> Ok, no disagreement here, just an observation that my "objective 2" was 
> intended to do the same thing that your 1a seems to be intended to do. So can 
> call your "1a" Objective #2 and delete the other one? The fewer and more 
> compact the objectives the better.
> --MM

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy