Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

As someone who sits outside the Registry-Registrar bi-polar conundrum on this 
issue, I would like to explain my view of why this is a phase 2 activity and 
make a recommendation.  I hope this can be seen as a basis for a compromise 
position of sorts.

Background thoughts:

1.  Contracts do establish a de-facto policy.  Not all policy is bottom up 
policy. And not all de-facto policy is straightforward or easy to identify.

2.  Charter Objective 6: To perform the PDP activities in a manner that does 
not delay the launch of the New GTLD Program.

3 .   The de-facto policy is very complex in that each contract has a different 
variant - though they are based on a common set of principles.  To modify this 
de-facto policy to match a bottom up policy taking this complexity into account 
may take a while and may extend beyond the schedule needed to meet Obj 6. 
Additionally further issue-report work may be required to establish a well 
formed basis for a PDP affecting existing contracts.

4.   It will be a while before new registries have any market advantage over 
the incumbents.  In fact if we meet the Brussels timeframe for a policy 
recommendation for new gTLD that can be folded into an Application Guidebook, 
it will still be another year (at least) before we have new registries.  This 
is more then enough time for the task described in (3) above.

Recommendation

As part of the Phase I policy recommendation relating to new gTLDs, made in 
time for Brussels, include a request for any necessary further issues-report 
and a recommended update to the charter that is specific about the need to 
bring current registry policy into line with the newly recommended policy for 
new gTLDs including any transition considerations that may be required.

a.