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
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?
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
It does relate directly to this group. Here is the full text of
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.