ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-vi-feb10] On the value of specific proposals

  • To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] On the value of specific proposals
  • From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 18:37:28 -0400

Mike,

The caps in contracts range from 11.2% to 15%. The CORE proposal
selected 15% for a specific reason, continuity with the existing regime.

Additionally, the CORE proposal does not contain a conditional lack of
certainty, there is no "subject to ICANN approval" increase, or
decrease, in the cap.

With the removal of the continuity number, CORE's proposal has been
removed from the matrix.

Additionally, with the insertion of some conditional lack of
certainty, CORE's proposal is again removed from the matrix.

Had CORE wanted something other than continuity and clarity, we would
have offered a change from the nominal 15%, and some conditional
language so that the actual cap could not be known in advance.

CORE's principles are continuity and predictability. Necessarily, some
advocates have other principles than these.

I appreciate the desire to have a tool, which is all a spreadsheet is,
to capture the principles, and non-principal details, of each of the
proposals. Unfortunately, in today's attempt to obtain clarity, an
entire proposal was lost, at least as far as that tool is concerned.

Eric



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy