Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
On 9/30/10 9:03 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
As the Chair of the PDP-WT, I would really appreciate these being captured and submitted to the PDP-WT.
Work Groups formed for the purpose of development of changes to existing policy are not usefully re-purposed as vehicles for the development of novel policy.
Scope matters. Hijacking is harmful.At the end of September, 6.5 months after this Working Group began work, the definition of "SRSU" is still not fixed, and a significant amount of time has been spent on this foreign topic.
More importantly, proposals have been crafted to exploit this ill-defined thing, and the development of consensus affected by a subject matter not in scope.
We don't know if we could have reached consensus if the proposals were restricted to public name spaces, where there are registrants, whether applied for and operated as "community-based" or as "standard" applications and subsequent operations. But we do know we did not with RACK+ excluding them, and JN2 and FT and CAM including them.
Had the foreign topic been a reduction in ICANN fee under Vertical Integration condition X, or any similar, the potential for harm to the primary purpose of the Working Group -- development of consensus on the subject matter specific to and explicit in the Working Group's charter -- would be just as present.