Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: First Draft of VI Initial Report v.1

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Ken Stubbs wrote:

Cant buy the "fud" arguement here Milton..

Interesting to note in the poll just taken that the compliance statement 
(see row K)  of the approx 30 persons who actually expressed an opinion 
on this statement
approx 85% could live with or were in favor of this proposal

On 7/15/2010 1:44 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 practices."
> 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
>
> ____________
>
> Margie Milam
>
> Senior Policy Counselor
>
> ICANN
>
> ____________