Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Economists

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, I agree with that. If we are able, as I suggested, to integrate elements 
of this WG's very useful work into an initial proposal from DAGv2 that seemed 
to be OK with some people (I'm not suggesting there's consensus), then perhaps 
we have a first step on the way to a solution for smaller or SU registries.

Stéphane

Le 5 mai 2010 à 17:12, Avri Doria a écrit :

> 
> Hi,
> 
> While I am not saying that I have accepted this as the solution, if we get 
> consensus on the same solution that existed in DAGv2, we would still not be 
> in the same place as we were then.
> 
> We will have gone through the Policy process on a Policy issue with a diverse 
> group of stakeholders and would have made a consensus recommendation. 
> 
> Though as I said in my comments on DAGv2, while the solution has a certain 
> charm based on its simplicity, I still feel that it may be a bit too much in 
> the one size fits all category and may lack some of the necessary 
> considerations.  It will be interesting to see how it comes out in the 
> polling against the categorial concerns.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 5 May 2010, at 06:15, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
>> I think your proposal makes a lot of sense Jeff... and that frustrates me. 
>> Let me explain. I've thought since DAGv2 that the solution there was 
>> probably a good compromise and I was dismayed when the community dissension 
>> which culminated just before DAGv3 meant that Staff withdrew that proposal 
>> from that version of the DAG.
>> 
>> If we've done all that, then gone through the GNSO creating a WG, then the 
>> Board taking everyone by surprise with its Nairobi resolution, only to come 
>> full circle back to the DAGv2, it does seem kind of ironic.
>> 
>> Then again, if it's the best solution, then we should not let such 
>> considerations stop us from accepting it.
>> 
> 
>