RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] The need to evaluate options in a consistent manner
- To: "'Jon Nevett'" <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] The need to evaluate options in a consistent manner
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 17:08:09 -0400
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.