[gnso-vi-feb10] Fwd: Commentary on the straw poll on objective 5

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Originally sent to the co-chairs, but given the list discussion of the
straw poll, resent to to the list.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Commentary on the straw poll on objective 5
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:42:34 +0100
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>

First, "Using all information that has been collected by ICANN to
date" is both under specific, and potentially impossible to actually
complete.

The information should be qualified, is it all information publicly
disclosed by ICANN as having been accumulated, is it specific data
sets, ... What is the data, or information, to date?

Even if the information is more narrowly defined, not all of it is
necessarily useful or not repetitive.

Second, "and AND ANY SUPPLEMENTARY documents" is also under specific
and potentially unusable.

Are these documents published prior to March 12th or March 23rd or
...? Just how large a document review must the group conduct?


Third, while the subject area is of visibly vibrant interest to
parties intellectually or economically motivated by price-capped,
standard ("open" or "generic" in prior terms of art) registries and
their sales channels and margins, it is of zero utility to parties
intellectually or economically motivated by community ("sponsored" in
prior terms of art) registries and their sales channels and margins.

It must therefore be qualified so that Objective 5 does not harm the
business models which exist in competition to the price-capped
standard business model pursued by most of the current registries, and
proportionally by the current registrars.

Eric