Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Work-planning

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I agree with you Jeff,  we shouldn't skip steps

I dont think failure of this group to reach timely consensus will slow down new 
TLDs.   It would just mean the Board will proceed with a final Applicant 
Guidebook based on an interpretation of their Nairobi resolution, or any 
amended resolution they may pass.      Should a later PDP reach consensus,  
registry contracts may be amended to reflect that policy -- as they would with 
any PDP.

For those keeping count - that's twice I've agreed with Neuman

RT


On Mar 28, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> I agree with Richard that we may be able to get there by Brussels if no 
> dramatic changes are recommended to the existing policies, but disagree with 
> the implication that we do not have to comply with the PDP process.  We must 
> follow the PDP process that is set forth in the Bylaws as part of this 
> Working Group.  Yes it is true that in the past we have extended deadlines 
> because the PDP timelines in those cases seemed too short.  However, we have 
> never skipped steps and we cannot begin to do so now. 
>  
> Although some hopeful registry applicants may want to do skip steps here 
> because their sole interest is going as fast as possible to get this PDP done 
> and incorporated in the new gTLD process, I would ask that each one of them 
> take a step back and think about the bad precedent we would be setting in the 
> long term in skipping vital elements of the PDP.  Contracted parties agree 
> with ICANN that for topics within the picket fence, we allow for unilateral 
> amendments by the community provided it goes through the PDP process.  If we 
> apply shortcuts here, what’s to stop someone from using this precedent to 
> establish short cuts in the future when you all are contracted parties and 
> have to abide by the results of the PDPs.  We cannot short cut the process 
> here and set that awful precedent just because of the new gTLD process.
>  
> This is what I have communicated to the leadership of this group and I am 
> glad that they have listened and reflected that in their plan.
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete 
> the original message.
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Tindal
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:11 PM
> To: Mike O'Connor; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Work-planning
>  
> Mikey
>  
> Thanks for the hard work.  This sort of process and structure will help get 
> us there.
>  
> As a general observation, I don't think we should be too daunted by the scope 
> and timeline of the PDP.  At its essence, the question we're asked is simple:
>  
>             In what circumstances might consumers be harmed by a registry 
> owning (or in some other way controlling) a retail supplier of its names?
>  
> I dont think it's that difficult a question.  I believe we'll get there 
> before Brussels
>  
> RT
>  
>  
> On Mar 27, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> 
> 
> hi all,
> 
> i wanted to share a little document that i've been chipping away at over the 
> last few days.  i'm *most* appreciative of the dialog on the list and would 
> like to stimulate a little more before our meeting next Monday.  advance 
> alert, i have no editorial pride and am actively looking for thoughts.
> 
> this deck is mostly about the way that we might approach our work.  i've laid 
> out a series of approaches, a little analysis of the pros and cons of each.  
> of course, picking an approach to the work will also define the scope and 
> thus the content and impact of the work as well.  so picking an approach is 
> more than just an exercise in project management.
> 
> there have been lots and lots of very helpful posts about this and we've been 
> reading them closely and discussing the implications amongst the leadership 
> group.  i'm thinking that this draft is in good enough shape to put in front 
> of the rest of you for comments/improvements.  
> 
> apologies in advance for the slide-deck, bullet-point format.  i know it can 
> drive people crazy. it's just the tool i use to think about things like this. 
>  please give this a read and comment back on this thread.  we'll be reading 
> closely and i will work your thoughts into the next draft for discussion 
> during the call on Monday.
> 
> thanks!
> 
> mikey
> 
> <VI Project v4.pdf>
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109  
> fax                   866-280-2356  
> web     www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
> 
>