ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[soac-mapo]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [soac-mapo] Board chooses to duck responsibility?

  • To: soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Board chooses to duck responsibility?
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:33:30 -0400

The start of the last paragraph puzzles me: "The Board will accept 
the Rec6 CWG recommendations that are not inconsistent with the 
existing process..."
What "existing process"? There was a proposed one in the last draft 
Applicant Guidebook, but there is nothing currently "in existence". 
And if we will only use parts of the CWG recommendation that are 
consistent with the original proposal, what was the point of the exercise?
Alan


At 27/09/2010 10:27 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
> I was thinking about this.  I am not sure that related directly to this
> group.


It does relate directly to this group. Here is the full text of resolution 2.9:
The Board acknowledges receipt of the Rec6CWG report. This is a 
difficult issue, and the work of the community in developing these 
recommendations is appreciated. The Board has discussed this 
important issue for the past three years.
The Board agrees that ultimate responsibility for the new gTLD 
program rests with the Board. The Board, however, wishes to rely on 
the determinations of experts regarding these issues.
The Board will accept the Rec6 CWG recommendations that are not 
inconsistent with the existing process, as this can be achieved 
before the opening of the first gTLD application round, and will 
work to resolve any inconsistencies. Staff will consult with the 
Board for further guidance as required.



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy