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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

By "policy" I mean Recommendation 19. 

But yes, this can get confusing. 

________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Avri Doria [avri@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 3:47 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: proposed rewording of Objective 5

Hi,

I thought the staff said there was no basic policy, and there is only 
restrictions and practices to go on.  Confusing or not.

a.

On 18 Feb 2010, at 15:41, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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
>>
>>