[gnso-vi-feb10] Response to poll and of course some comments

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Comment: a summary statement of the proposal, whether by the advocate,
or by the poll author as a disinterested party, would be useful at
each poll question.

I'm posting this not because I think everyone needs to read it, but
because I've not seen anyone attempt to categorize the proposals for
their common points and specific areas of difference. Extended comment
below the poll responses.

---

Q3. CORE

I am an advocate for this proposal

Q4. Jeff Eckhaus

I oppose this proposal and will list the reasons in the comments

it sets no limits on cross-ownership and therefore cannot obtain the
support of the RrC on the council, nor does it anticipate concerns of
the IPC.

additionally, absent a single-registrant application type, there
appears to be little actual content to this proposal.

to its credit, the author does not exploit the community-based
application type to advance a single-registrant policy development goal.

Q5. Jeff Neuman

I oppose this proposal and will list the reasons in the comments

the proposal is primarily for "single-registrant" policy. if separated
into "standard or community-based" and "single-registrant" buckets,
the "standard or community-based" bucket contains nothing for
"standard" application types, and it contains nothing of substance, as
an exception proposal, from the PIR proposal, see the 2(a) and 2(b)
division of applicability.

the mention of "community-based" application types is therefore
creative advocacy, not an actual policy development proposal.

Q6. Jon Nevett

I support this proposal but would like to propose minor revisions in
the comments

conceptually, there is little to distinguish this proposal from the
PIR proposal, that is, the current cap plus some exception language,
here expressed in time rather than volume, and the exception from a
Recommendation 19 regime to self-registrar regime.

because of the revenue distortion in year 1 (landrush and sunrise), i
prefer the exception, expressed as time, to be closer to the full
first contract period of 5 years, rather than 18 to 24 months after
beginning operations.

the proposal assumes that the community process is less onerous than
contract modification, given ICANN Counsel's position on contract
modification (unilateral amendment power), this may not be true.

Q7. MMA

I oppose this proposal and will list the reasons in the comments

the proposal is primarily for "single-registrant" policy. if separated
into "standard or community-based" and "single-registrant" buckets,
the "standard or community-based" bucket contains nothing for
"standard" application types, and it contains nothing of substance, as
an exception proposal, from the PIR or Nevett proposals, see the "most
appropriate" language of page 4, paras 1 and 2, discussing registrars.

the mention of "community-based" application types is therefore
creative advocacy, not an actual policy development proposal.

Q8. PIR

I support this proposal but would like to propose minor revisions in
the comments

the point of exception, here expressed in volume terms, could be
lowered to 5k, and possibly garner the support of the RC.

---

It seems to me that this is a poll about what we don't agree on, that
is, no proposal is of the form "registry ownership in registrars
should be substantially lower than it is today". So there is no
agreement with Board Resolution #5, which is not surprising, as the
group wasn't formed at random. Where there is disagreement is whether
there should be exception, and for whatever reason all but one of the
authors seek an exception from the equal access competitive registrar
requirement, whether the exception should take the form of volume or
time, whether the transition is to or from the equal access
competitive registrar system, and for the "single registrant"
proposals, the exception completely unconditional, and some controls
language, the "audit" subject.

If the common element to all the proposals, no substantial change from
the 15% cap, is the policy recommendation, then CORE has no objections
to additional areas of policy development. We don't think exception,
or a higher cap are necessary, or desirable, but if there is consensus
for exception, or for a higher cap, other than to advise on the lack
of necessity or the non-desirable aspects, we won't oppose proposals
that extend on some proposal with a cap allowing minority
participation, roughly symmetric, for both registries and registrars.

Eric