ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-vi-feb10] Preamble

  • To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Preamble
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:57:19 +0100


I wanted to make a few follow-up comments to those I made about consensus 
policy and refer them to the preamble.

> Preamble:  The working group on vertical integration shall evaluate policy 
> recommendations for [new gTLDs only] [new gTLDs and existing gTLDs.  As 
> explained in the Issues Report, the working group may be restricted in its 
> ability to create Consensus Policies under existing registry agreements.] 
> [The working group expects to define the range of restrictions on vertical 
> separation that are currently in effect, to serve as a baseline to evaluate 
> future proposals.]

I think that the policy/guidelines this group recommends should be applicable 
across gTLD registries, old and new.  

Once approved, I believe they should apply to the new GTLDs in this first 
round.  The policy/guidelines do not necessarily have to be complete for the 
next DAG, but they do need to be completed, community reviewed and board voted 
on before the final guidebook.  While I think we should be done before DAGv4 
(does anyone know the real schedule on that), if we aren't then the DAGv4 
should leave a place holder on this topic.

On the question of their applicability to existing gTLDS, I think the issue is 
more complex.  I do _not_ see this PDP as being able to produce consensus 
policy on that - I think in the case of  consensus policy that would change the 
condition in an existing arrangement,m the PDP question would have to be quite 
specific.  What I think this PDP can do, and should do, in relation to the 
existing arrangements is measure then against the policy/guideline produced in 
this PDP and recommend whether further work on consensus policies should be 
considered by the GNSO and GNSO Council.  In doing this the WG should produce a 
list a very specific areas/questions, if any are found, in which a consensus 
policy PDP would be recommended.

In deference to 

> {Objective 4:  To perform the PDP activities in a manner that does not delay 
> the launch of the New GTLD Program. }

We may want to set two deliverables, 
- one the Policy/guideline on all gTLDS and the analysis of the options on VI 
included in DAGv3.   (Obj 1,2)
- and the other the recommendation for consensus policy action, if any, for 
existing gTLDs. (Obj 3)

The part of me that wants to be optimistic about our ability to get this all 
done in 6 weeks wants to argue against this approach.  But some aspects of 
reality dawned on me today when it became obvious we could not have a charter 
in time for the meeting on 18 Feb.  The extra 3 weeks spent on the charter 
means we probably could not deliver objective 3 in 16 weeks - if ever we could 
have (with  deference to MM having called it impossible from day 1).  But in 
deference to Objective 4, delivering on Objectives 1&2 by May 14 might be a 
start. With Obj 3 a month later.


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy