Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: First Draft of VI Initial Report v.1
- To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: First Draft of VI Initial Report v.1
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:03:47 -0500
a perfect example of the kind of review/suggestion i am hoping we can produce.
i've started a punch-list of these...
On Jul 15, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> A comment:
> The following statement, especially when taken in context, seems exaggerated
> and could be cut altogether:
> “It cannot be overstated, based on public skepticism of historic enforcement
> challenges, that a new compliance and enforcement program should be in place,
> properly financed and staffed and operationally effective prior to changes
> that would open the door to potential anti-competitive conduct and abusive
> I don’t think there is wide consensus on this statement. One of my key
> concerns here is the words “prior to changes that would open the door” -
> this allows those who might be using “compliance” as a delaying or FUD tactic
> to claim always that we can’t move forward because the proper mechanisms are
> not in place yet. In fact, compliance capabilities and techniques will always
> have to evolve in tandem with the implementation of new TLDs. As a practical
> matter we have to define the policy, start to implement it, and then at the
> same time calibrate our compliance and enforcement capabilities.
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Margie Milam
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:24 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] First Draft of VI Initial Report v.1
> Importance: High
> Dear All,
> In preparation for the call VI call tomorrow, please find attached the First
> Draft of the Initial Report for your review and consideration.
> As you review this Draft, please note that:
> · Due to the size of the document (currently over 90 pages!) I have
> excluded the annexes and provide only the text of the report.
> · The SRSU description is especially thin and needs further content
> from IPC representatives and from NCSG representatives.
> · Please disregard any formatting issues as I will be doing a more
> thorough review of the document as it becomes more final.
> · Once the results of the poll are in, someone will need to draft
> content with any observations that to be included in Section 6.
> Unfortunately, I will not be on tomorrow’s call, but Marika will manage the
> call in my absence. I will be in an all-day meeting in MDR, and will
> follow up with Marika after the VI call.
> Best regards,
> Margie Milam
> Senior Policy Counselor
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)