ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


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

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

  • To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>, "icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:34:24 -0400

Milton, no one is disputing that a PDP can look at policy issues such as this. I was questioning whether a PDP after the fact "to address harms" could alter what was already cast in a contract.

Alan

At 07/07/2010 04:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
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


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy