Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items -- 5-July call

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eric-

Although I agree with you and your message that there are more things to
resolve than to focus on SR, I think that we can't pause it because SR
solutions, at very least for brands, has to be sorted in the whole process
so that brands who are shifting from ""destroy" to "resist" and on their way
to "apply" as a stance on new TLDs don't revert back to their first mode and
crush the momentum it seems like we have from the board and community on new
TLDs.

I am not suggesting in any way that ONLY brands deserve SR.  I am suggesting
that there should be some way forward for brands to see a compatibility with
their models (vis a vis SR) as a product of our efforts.

Additionally, there are interdependances that need to remain in focus with
how an SR scenario would fit in within the framework of other exceptions to
Board/DAGv3 this group produces.

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax


On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <
ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
>  anything else on your minds that you'd like included in the agenda?
>>
>
> Well, I for one would like dropping the SR nonsense into a deep hole until
> after we've succeeded in solving non-edge cases like whether we're going to
> eliminate all current registries, or eliminate all current registrars, from
> all real application types, or simply sprinkle magic pixie dust on all
> things integrated and wonderful and let Dog, the Market, and a historically
> under-resourced compliance function sort out what might benefit the
> consumers, if we could differentiate the few new gTLD consumers from the 100
> million or so legacy gTLD consumers.
>
> Eric
>