[gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

As one of those who spoke in favor of phasing, let me explain myself.

In any phasing, dealing with recommendations for the current round should be 
phase I and should be completed as quickly as possible without any deviations 
for side issues.

If, on the other hand there are more complicated issues that we want to 
consider with relation to incumbent practice or what would pertain in future 
rounds that is the stuff I would recommend for a second phase.  Additionally, 
if for example we decide on a set of practices that are ok for this current 
round, but then decide that we want to consider what happens when conditions 
change and the registry wants to change its model , that is an issue I would 
defer to a second phase.  On the other hand if we set a bunch conditions 
related to co/cross ownership for new first round registries and want to 
consider allowing an incumbent to adopt that model, that too is something I 
would recommend pushing off to a later phase.  BTW, I would not be surprised in 
some of these hypothetical issues required going back to the GNSO for a charter 
renewal at some point (not recommending that for now).

In short I recommend phasing and the creation of a phase II so that we have a 
place to put any issue that comes up that does not immediately affect the 
current new gTLD process.  For all of the stuff related to this round - I hope 
we have  our recommendations in time for Brussels, if not before.

a.