RE: [soac-mapo] Redefiningthe 4th criteria

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Evan,

 

With all due respect to your opinion that the GNSO decisions were wrong, I want 
to point out that they were definitely not hastily made.  There were voices in 
the GNSO who held the same opinion as you; as one example, the NCUC submitted a 
minority statement in that regard.  But in the end after many months of 
deliberation on this issue alone and over 1.5 years of the PDP, the Council 
approved the Final Report including recommendation 6 with a supermajority vote 
and the ICANN Board later approved that report and asked Staff to develop an 
implementation plan.  In fairness to the ICANN Implementation Team, we gave 
them a very challenging task.

 

Now, let’s see if this group can agree on some improvements to the 
implementation plan and let’s try to do it quickly because, except for those 
who may not want new gTLDs at all, I think most of us want to avoid further 
delays.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 12:13 PM
To: Jothan Frakes
Cc: soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Redefiningthe 4th criteria

 

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