RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: proposed rewording of Objective 5

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

The problem is that (as the staff report documented) the restrictions and 
practices have varied considerably over time but the basic policy has not, so 
using "restrictions and practices" as a guide is a no go - it provides 
confusion rather than clarity.

________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Avri Doria [avri@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 5:59 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: proposed rewording of Objective 5

Hi,

Restrictions and practices makes sense to me since they are part of what 
defines a de-facto policy.

a.

On 17 Feb 2010, at 16:47, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
> Margie;
> I agree with "current and past" but no, I don't think I can agree to adding 
> "restrictions and practices." As GNSO we are interested only in consistency 
> with policy, not with "practices and restrictions". I view that as a 
> tendentious change.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:46 PM
>> To: Milton L Mueller; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: proposed rewording of Objective 5
>>
>> Milton,
>>
>> I suggest rewording Objective 5 slightly to replace the term "current
>> policies" with "current and past restrictions and practices" to be
>> consistent with the other objectives and our prior discussions.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Margie
>>
>> ___________
>>
>> Margie Milam
>> Senior Policy Counselor
>> ICANN
>> ___________
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:46 AM
>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] proposed rewording of Objective 5
>>
>>
>>
>> Objective 5: To determine whether the changes to the current restrictions
>> and/or practices concerning registry-registrar separation and equal access
>> contained in the options set out in DAGv3 constitute an unacceptable
>> deviation from current policies regarding registry-registrar sewparation.
>>
>> Rationale: this does not require research or an open-ended assessment of
>> the entire registry-registrar market, but a simple determination that the
>> DAGv3 proposals are an unauthorized policy change.
>>
>> --MM
>
>