Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated Definitions - resend
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated Definitions - resend
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:18:35 -0500
realized i left an essential part of a answer to the question out:
i am fine with either the formulation by Milton orby Kristina/Mike - i see
them as relatively isomorphic - just picking their words differently.
i.e. i tend to see 'material deviations' as pointing to changes to markets,
registrants and users.
On 19 Feb 2010, at 11:41, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> May I also ask if the rest of the DT supports the current objective 5 as
> proposed by Milton? Because if that is the case, then we also have the option
> of moving forwards while noting, in the charter, the IPC's objection (and
> perhaps suggested rewording).
with either of the two alternatives. i.e.
- constitute a material deviation from current and past restrictions and
- retail and wholesale markets for domain names and on consumers of domain names
I do have an issue if we use the word policy. should we revert to the use of
policy in Obj 5, I would ask that we say 'policy, whether explicit such as new
GTLD Policy recommendation 19 or defacto based on current and past restrictions
and practices, ...
One thing that still concerns me in this charter is that is seems to be out of
scope for the WG to suggest issue that could further be discussed if there are
found to be differences between the recommendation made in Obj 1 and current
restrictions and practices. If it is there, I just don't see it. I think it
is important, even if it is a later deliverable so that Obj 6 can be met.