<<<
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
Hi,
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.
a.
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
>>>
|