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

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton:

Don't be such a pessimist.  As a community, we got together and solved the 
restructuring of the GNSO, we solved the tasting issue, we got together and 
agreed -- for the most part -- on certain trademark protections for New TLDs, 
and indeed we got together and agreed -- for the most part -- on a list of 
recommendations to establish New TLDs in the first place.  I'm sure that there 
are many other examples.  VI is one issue where we are unable to reach 
consensus.  It's not indicative of a failure of the model, but rather that 
there are parties on all sides of the debate who feel passionately about the 
issue and can't reach a resolution.  Nothing more nothing less.  Some form of 
VI/CO restriction is in every registry agreement without the benefit of a 
PDP-outcome (or any lawsuits), this trend will need to continue for this next 
round of applications.  The Board will need to make a decision on this one and 
move on to the next issue. 

JN1

On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:38 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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.