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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for bringing this proper perspective, Jon.

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jon Nevett
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 8:48 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

 

 

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.