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

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton, so we have you to thank for this :-).  

My recollection is that the registrars and registries on Council voted against 
the NCSG motion to form a PDP in the first place because there was a sense that 
the VI issue would not be "solved" via a PDP.  We had been working on this 
issue for nearly 2 years without resolution.  We had numerous consultations, 
letters going back and forth, CircleID articles, and various economic studies.  
After all of that, many of us didn't believe that a PDP would change anything 
and encouraged the Board to just make a decision.  It is almost 6 months later 
and it looks like we are in the same position -- the Board will need to make a 
decision and move on.  



On Jul 7, 2010, at 4:49 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
>  
> 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