Re: [soac-mapo] Redefiningthe 4th criteria

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Evan, 

This has been an insanely complicated process. Many of us could say "you should 
have listened to me, and if you had things would be fine."   For instance, if 
we had EOIs, which I championed, we might not need this process at all, because 
we would know the strings, and it my opinion it is highly unlikely that we will 
see any objectionable TLDs at all.  The ICANN community gave that idea a 
hearing, but rejected it, for reasons that many found convincing, and so here 
we are. 

The fault, if there is one, lies with the ICANN community as a whole.  The past 
is a collective responsibility, and so is the present and future.  I think we 
will get a lot further, quicker, if we try to be constructive even though our 
own ideas weren't welcomed by the rest of the community.  The Working Group has 
agreed to try to do this rapidly, so let's get to work and try to do that. 

Antony


On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> On 31 August 2010 14:16, Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
> What is colliding with this "probably important" work is that it potentially 
> represents 'yet another delay' ("YAD") to the arrival of an application round 
> if we don't perform this work rapidly.  It comes after years of YADs, and is 
> likely one of the most subjective and contentious of them.
> 
> 
> Sorry to be blunt, but from my point of view, YAD is YODF.
> 
> (YODF: Your own damned faults)
> 
> ALAC and NCUC were sounding alarm bells about this issue years ago. Too many 
> parties valued (what they thought at the time to be) expediency over proper 
> consideration; the ALAC reservations, strong and unequivocal as they were, 
> never saw the light of day in any DAG (or published DAG comments). Nobody 
> else wanted our objection to delay the process.
> 
> Indeed, we wouldn't even be having this conversation had the GAC had not 
> weighed in. The GNSO as a whole would have been quite fine with the miserable 
> staff-proposed status quo. Now we're back to looking at how to restrict 
> things, how to put in new obstacles, rather than how to steamline.
> 
> At-Large wants to see new TLDs as much as anyone else, but its participants 
> have also seen so many delays and reconsiderations caused by early bad 
> decisions made in the honour of expediency.
> 
> In this light, please forgive my reluctance to see expediency tossed up yet 
> again as a pretence to do hasty (and wrong) decisions that will cause further 
> delays and grief in the future.
>  
> (Stated not as a representative of anyone, but an intimate observer of 
> At-Large's history on the issue.)
> 
> - Evan
>