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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

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

<evil laugh>

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.

I would frame it differently. Many registrars voted against a PDP because a few 
of the more vocal ones thought they had negotiated private deals with staff 
that would give them what they wanted. But none of them knew exactly what staff 
would do ultimately. And none of them were able to demonstrate any consensus 
around a specific solution. And we had a pretty serious jihad from some of the 
registries (what is now the RACK group). While both NCSG and CSG (I think, not 
intending to speak for them) felt that the issues had not been properly aired.

Given all that, I saw no practical alternative to making an honest attempt to 
arrive at an agreed policy through an open process that involves all the 
stakeholder groups in direct discussions and negotiations. Do you?

The idea that we can punt policy making to staff and board has its appeal, I 
know. But a more mature contemplation of its meaning tells us that the whole 
model underlying ICANN is failing if we have to resort to that every time we 
face a difficult issue.