Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6 Implementation Discussion

[Stuart Lawley <stuart@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Richard re: universally resolvability as, I believe .IL doesn"t 
resolve in many countries such as Syria and UAE.

I am not sure the word "maximizing" is the correct choice of word , but am 
presently, at a loss to suggest alternative wording.

Should the working group also make explicitly clear that the ToR refer to new 
gTLD's ONLY as the GAC letter of 4th August refers to "pending TLD's" that 
could be construed to mean .xxx and IDN ccTLDs such as the arabic version of 
the Occupied Territories of Palestine etc. , which I am sure is viewed as 
"sensitive" in certain quarters.

Stuart



On Aug 21, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:

> Chuck,
> 
> I'm good with all the edits in the attached version.  I think they add to the 
> clarity of the document.
> 
> I question use of the word 'preserving' in this sentence:  "preserving 
> the.................universal resolvability of the DNS (as noted in 
> Recommendation 4)."
> 
> I don't think there's universal resolvability of the DNS today.  For example, 
> I don't think .TW names resolve in the PRC.  As preserve means to 'keep 
> unchanged' I don't think we can preserve something that doesn't exist.     
> Also,  I don't see specific reference to 'universal resolvability' in GNSO 
> Recommendation 4.  
> 
> I think a better word than 'preserving' is 'maximizing'.   i think 
> 'maximizing' also works well with the additional concepts introduced in 
> Milton's version of the sentence.
> 
> RT   
>  
> 
> <Rec6 WG Terms of Reference-RG-edits+Aug 21 ver.doc>
> 
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
>> Date: August 20, 2010 6:46:23 PM EDT
>> To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6 
>> Implementation Discussion
>> 
>> 
>> On 20 Aug 2010, at 15:06, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>>> <Rec6 WG Terms of Reference-RG-edits.doc>
>> 
>> I essentially support this formulation with the edits done before me by 
>> Milton and Robin, though I do have some questions about other content of the 
>> ToR.
>> 
>> - i question whether it is possible to  find an appropriate solution without 
>> revisiting and possibly revising the understanding  of policy recommendation 
>> 6.  I also question to what extent one can separate implementation from 
>> policy. We see them as separate because the volunteer group does policy and 
>> the paid staff does the implementation.  But as anyone who have ever done 
>> and implementation of any policy or design knows, it is impossible to do 
>> just implementation without making many, sometime minor sometime major, 
>> policy interpretations and decisions along the way.  Hence the need to 
>> review implementation for their faithfulness to the original policy/design.  
>> Implementation experience also must be allowed to affect policy.  And if the 
>> only reasonable implementation of a policy is something that most cannot 
>> accept, then perhaps the original recommendation was the problem and should 
>> be reconsidered.
>> 
>> - The report section needed a statement on the possibility of minority 
>> reports. I added one.
>> 
>> - The one question that is not answered.  who is chartering this group 
>> GAC+ALAC+GNSO or the Board?  It seems that this ToR is setup to report 
>> directly to the Board?  Is this the intention.  Does the Board need to 
>> review or endorse the ToR?  Or did they empower the 3 chairs and the group 
>> in formation with the ability to approve its own ToR?
>> 
>> Also did a few editorials.
>> 
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>