RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Exactly right. As one of the persons who initially proposed this PDP via the 
NCSG, the idea was always that this was a short-term effort to solve the loose 
policy ends implied by the DAGv3. It was an attempt to establish VI/CO policy 
for the initial round of TLD applications to prevent staff from "making policy" 
in the guise of "implementation." Any continuation of the PDP can take on 
longer term issues.

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:13 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

Alan, I disagree.  PDP '06 was specifically devoted to contractual conditions.  
The domain tasting PDP changed contractual conditions.  The WHOIS PDP will 
eventually change contractual conditions.  My memory may be a little hazy, but 
I thought this Vertical Integration group is a PDP Working Group, or at least a 
"pre-PDP" working group.  Even those advocates of the status quo have agreed at 
least that there should be more study in a later/ongoing PDP.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 12:56 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeff Eckhaus'; 
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

At 07/07/2010 01:25 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
And in any event, any such harms, if serious enough, can be addressed through a 
later PDP.

Just one comment since similar things have been said by a number of people. We 
are talking about contractual conditions here. No PDP, regardless of the level 
of GNSO support or Board support, has the power to alter those.

Alan