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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 7 Jul 2010, at 21:56, Jon Nevett wrote:

> 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.  


I thought they already had made a decision.

or do you mean you wish they would make yet another decision?

with apologies to Milton, I was the naive one in NCSG discussions about the PDP 
vote who thought it was possible for you all to abandon the years of back and 
forth and actually come to compromise.  i thought the principle of bottom-up 
decision making was important enough to the participants to think they could 
compromise.

a.


On 7 Jul 2010, at 21:56, Jon Nevett wrote:

> 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
>