Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephane,

There is only the "community-based" and "standard" types of
applications in the DAG.

There is an advocacy position that more types of applications be added
to the DAG.

I don't share your view, expressed in your response to Richard, below:

> The single owner model is just as important as other models that are being 
> discussed.

Models not found in the DAG simply can't be "just as important" as
models which are, at least, not in a working group chartered
specifically to develop policy recommendations for what is in the DAG,
and in particular, to respond to the Board's Resolution #5 from the
Nairobi meeting.

This is not the model creation working group. The GNSO could have, at
any time, since Paris, formed such a group. It can do so at its next
meeting, it could even be so specific as to form a group to explore
models where no registrar services exist, only registry services.

Under the GNSO Reform, policy development is not subject to the
representative form of the GNSO Council, but the function of forming
and tasking working groups, including those which are formed and
tasked to make policy recommendations to the representative body is a
function of the representative body.

No matter how vigerous the advocates, no matter how interesting, even
vital, the question, if it is not within the scope, then it is out of
scope until the Council changes the scope.

We can legitimately come to a conclusion that we have nothing to
recommend, for the "standard" application type, and so those
applicants will experience the as yet unclarified regime created by
the Board in Resolution #5, and we have something to recommend for the
"community-based" type, which if the Council approves, and if the
Board approves unchanged, those applicants will experience, along with
all interested 3rd parties, from registrars to registrants to
unspecified "others".

We can legitimately come to a conclusion that we have nothing to
recommend for "community-based" and something to recommend for
"standard", and we can we can legitimately come to a conclusion that
we have nothing to recommend for any existing type.

What we can't do legitimately is come to a conclusion about a type
that doesn't exist.

Kurt may be very blase about Staff's ability to put whatever Staff
wants into the DAG, and in particular put in "single registrant".
Others may think it is a "done deal" as well, or "necessary" or
"vital" or whatever.

If it is so easy to do, then its advocates, its authors, should do it
and get it into this working group's charter, after all, its asserted
to be easy, so why isn't it happening?

What advocate of "single registrant" is going to put a motion on the
next Council agenda to recommend to the Board to direct Staff to
create a "single registrant" type of application?

Any volunteers?

Eric