RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] The need to evaluate options in a consistent manner

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I think it is hard to avoid the fact that some folks are looking for an 
exception to Recommendation 19 for SRs.

Nothing wrong with that.  This WG was created and chartered by the GNSO, which 
made Rec 19 in the first place. There is nothing in its charter which says that 
we can't do create an exception to Rec 19. And not to touch on a sensitive 
point or anything, but the trademark paroxysms that concluded with the STI 
recommendations also addressed points that we thought we had resolved in the 
initial set of policy recommendations.

My points are that such an exception 1) it isn't necessary -- the SR could 
perform the registrar function;

But some see that as defeating the purpose of being a SR.

 2) is an issue outside of our scope -- the GNSO already decided this one;

Factually wrong, as noted above

 3) would create a host of unintended consequences -- e.g. applicability of 
issues in the RAA and Consensus Policies if there were no registrars; and 4) 
would derail our work and cause a needless delay in New TLDs.

I argued strenuously during the Drafting of this WG's charter that "true VI" 
and SR-type issues were long term, not short term, and that easy, short-term 
issues such as CO should be resolved first, and the long term issues later.
Later, in this WG we have had a discussion of "phasing". But every time I bring 
that up, no one responds and nothing happens.

My view is that if we can find a way to allow SR's to participate in the first 
new TLD round, we should do so. If there are any longer-term issues that cannot 
be resolved in time for that we should push them back to phase 2 of this wg.

--MM