RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Draft exception process

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I would see Antony's proposal as simpler, easier to enforce and preferable to 
Tim's. 
Even Antony's proposal is too restrictive, however. I know I've said this a 
million times, but the idea of putting massive limits on start up TLDs as if 
they were Network Solutions in 1998 is just crazy. 

--MM


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Antony Van Couvering
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 9:57 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Draft exception process
> 
> As a member of the exceptions subgroup, I regret that I can't support
> Tim's draft as it stands.  The conditions for an exception are costly
> and punitive (strict structural separation) and impose expensive after-
> delegation conditions (after setting up a registrar, being forced to
> abandon it after 30K names).  Furthermore, these exceptions would apply
> only to a  subset of those registries/registrars who would be negatively
> impacted.
> 
> I have therefore made changes to Tim's draft, which I submit here as
> Word docs (in redline and clean versions) and the clean version in PDF
> format for those who don't have my version of Word, and I submit it to
> the subgroup and the working group as a whole.
> 
> With these meaningful exceptions in place, I would be willing to
> acquiesce to one of the proposals to impose limitations on cross-
> ownership or control.  Please note that my exceptions are easy to
> understand and do not require either (a) substantial compliance efforts
> or (b) arbitrary judgment on who is deserving and who isn't.
> 
> Antony