Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Draft exception process
As a member of the exceptions subgroup, I regret that I can't support Tim's draft as it stands. The conditions for an exception are costly and punitive (strict structural separation) and impose expensive after-delegation conditions (after setting up a registrar, being forced to abandon it after 30K names). Furthermore, these exceptions would apply only to a subset of those registries/registrars who would be negatively impacted. I have therefore made changes to Tim's draft, which I submit here as Word docs (in redline and clean versions) and the clean version in PDF format for those who don't have my version of Word, and I submit it to the subgroup and the working group as a whole. With these meaningful exceptions in place, I would be willing to acquiesce to one of the proposals to impose limitations on cross-ownership or control. Please note that my exceptions are easy to understand and do not require either (a) substantial compliance efforts or (b) arbitrary judgment on who is deserving and who isn't. Antony Attachment:
VI exceptions clean.pdf Attachment:
VI exceptions clean.docx Attachment:
VI exceptions redlined.docx On Jul 7, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > Draft of the exception process attached. Posting to the whole list due > to our call tomorrow. Again, this is not a RACK+ group proposal, it is > based on ideas/concerns I heard during the Brussels meeting and in off > list discussions. Also, all those who asked to be part of this group > have not had an opportunity to see it or comment. > > It doesn't solve all the issues, nor is it meant to. The idea is to > allow for possible exceptions in certain cases in the first round while > a more permanent policy continues to be hammered out. > > Tim > > <VIApplicationExceptionProcess_v2.txt>
|