Re: [soac-mapo] Redefiningthe 4th criteria

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 31 August 2010 14:16, Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> What is colliding with this "probably important" work is that it
> potentially represents 'yet another delay' ("YAD") to the arrival of an
> application round if we don't perform this work rapidly.  It comes after
> years of YADs, and is likely one of the most subjective and contentious of
> them.
>


Sorry to be blunt, but from my point of view, YAD is YODF.

(YODF: Your own damned faults)

ALAC and NCUC were sounding alarm bells about this issue years ago. Too many
parties valued (what they thought at the time to be) expediency over proper
consideration; the ALAC reservations, strong and unequivocal as they were,
never saw the light of day in any DAG (or published DAG comments). Nobody
else wanted our objection to delay the process.

Indeed, we wouldn't even be having this conversation had the GAC had not
weighed in. The GNSO as a whole would have been quite fine with the
miserable staff-proposed status quo. Now we're back to looking at how to
restrict things, how to put in new obstacles, rather than how to steamline.

At-Large wants to see new TLDs as much as anyone else, but its participants
have also seen so many delays and reconsiderations caused by early bad
decisions made in the honour of expediency.

In this light, please forgive my reluctance to see expediency tossed up yet
again as a pretence to do hasty (and wrong) decisions that will cause
further delays and grief in the future.

(Stated not as a representative of anyone, but an intimate observer of
At-Large's history on the issue.)

- Evan