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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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