Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Closure?
I still find this position curiously close to being in denial of the fact that all abuse feared from VI is also likely to occur with VS. If vertical seperation leads to less enforcement of compliance, then suggesting it is in fact a call to open the floodgates for abuse.* Compliance is key - whatever the rules established for the new TLDs, we need a mechanism to enforce them;For some. Recall, there is no need for extended compliance where there is structural separation.
I must agree with Eric here: We do have (limited) consensus on some (very) minor points.vertical separation;* There is no consensus, either on vertical integration orI have the impression I write in invisible ink. We have consensus that any proposal to allow the IPC alone to run SRSU is junk. We have consensus that any proposal to let some, but not all contracted parties, to run to the bank is junk. That's actually more than I ever expected, and a starting point to discover if there are conditions for which all contracted parties could pursue registry contracts.
The list of harms is as of yet just that: A list compiled in a brainstorming. We have not talked about this list, discussed the premises of each harm, or its implications. The list as it stands, is therefore worthless unless it is taken as a basis for further discussions.* We have identified a list of harms that suggest that either complete separation or complete integration will create problems;
Actually, I found the GAC position to be remarkably close to JN2. While setting a limit on VI in general, it opens the doors for certain exceptions from this limitations for cultural TLDs, SRSUs and others.* If we keep the status quo of vertical separation, there are some cases where vertical separation will hinder the business more than helping the market; * While the WG has not identified exact examples (although some cases like cultural TLDs or brand TLDs have been discussed), there is a general feeling that some exceptions could be granted.The GAC has good language here, and the RACK+ and JN2 proposals contained equivalent language on the subject. Some of the SRSU interests and the free-market-or-nothing interests appear to object.
While we as a group may all agree that there may be exceptions possible, there is wide disagreement as to what these exceptions should be to, i.e. what the baseline should be. My definition of possible exeption is different from Erics. Just as an example: While there may or may not be certain potential harms in VI in general that may or may not suggest that even the technical service for a new TLD should not be done by a registrar, does this still apply in cases where there is only one (or a restricted number of) registrant(s), such as in the SRSU scenario? I think not.
As for future work, I would remit the mandate to the Council, who should tell us if they want us to continue, recharter our effort, or whatever. In other words, the question of Phase 1 vs. Phase 2 is a question that the Council should decide. We can propose to continue or stop it here, but the final decision has to be made by the Council.No. We were not asked to just solve a first round how to manage greed and chaos question, given the choice of having a single one-size-fits-all application process, but to provide the general policy for the ongoing market.If the Council wants to end a PDP, they know how.
Once again, I agree with Eric. Our duty is to our mandate.
I would greatly prefer that Mikey had not sent the unfortunate "we're done" message to the Council, the subject of the previous cleanup call, and I would also greatly prefer that Roberto not send another "we're done" message to the Council, necessitating another clean up call, or exceptionally ending a PDP through individual fatigue.
+1 Best regards, Volker Greimann