Re: [soac-mapo] Redefiningthe 4th criteria
I think the salient point Evan makes should be taken to heart: our primary goal is not to have an immediate policy, but the right policy. So while I do understand and share the desire to complete our task immediately, we also have to avoid making hasty judgments and cutting-off debates. I'm not saying that is what we are doing, just something I hope we can keep in mind. Thanks, Robin On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Evan,With all due respect to your opinion that the GNSO decisions were wrong, I want to point out that they were definitely not hastily made. There were voices in the GNSO who held the same opinion as you; as one example, the NCUC submitted a minority statement in that regard. But in the end after many months of deliberation on this issue alone and over 1.5 years of the PDP, the Council approved the Final Report including recommendation 6 with a supermajority vote and the ICANN Board later approved that report and asked Staff to develop an implementation plan. In fairness to the ICANN Implementation Team, we gave them a very challenging task.Now, let’s see if this group can agree on some improvements to the implementation plan and let’s try to do it quickly because, except for those who may not want new gTLDs at all, I think most of us want to avoid further delays.ChuckFrom: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Evan LeibovitchSent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 12:13 PM To: Jothan Frakes Cc: soac-mapo Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Redefiningthe 4th criteria 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 IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|