[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Choice of platform and eligibility determination

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Michele,

In your response you raise two questions:

1. Can the resources of the applicant for .carlow be distinguished from the
resources of Afilas?

2. Is application support given unconditionally?


First, Afilias (or ...) has its own goals and resources. Using the limited
resources ICANN has committed, or that other donors may provide, to extend
the resources and advance the goals of Afilias (or ...) is problematic. To
the extent that these can be comingled and therefore be expended without
oversight was the core of the structural separation (Vertical Integration)
debate, whos participants were unable to come to a means to provide useful
oversight absent structural separation.

The unconditional transfer of assets to incumbent operators seems unlikely
to meet the broadest interpretation of promoting inclusion.

Second, and forgive me for recycling ideas, the .carlow applicant, rather
than insisting siting on the comfortable sofa Afilias offers, could insist
that .carlow needs to be perched on the milking stool at Carlow, where no
v6 exists, or is likeley to in the next 10 quarters, and local network access
providers are 6to4 indifferent, or adverse. [1]

The .carlow applicant choice frustrates the utility of supporting the
application. I think you wrote you were OK with such errors of judgement
resulting in failed applications. 

I don't think you missed the import of some restriction on the choice
an applicant has to dispose of resources provided to it. An example that
was mentioned earlier is the case where an applicant does not transition
to delegation within the maximum period of delay. Is that a proper use of
resources or is the abandoned application a recoverable resource which
may be reallocated? The working group chose the latter over the former,
so limits to the choices of applicants are assumed to exist.

Eric


[1] RFC 6343 Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment