RE: [soac-mapo] Board chooses to duck responsibility?

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

The start of the last paragraph puzzles me: "The Board will accept 
the Rec6 CWG recommendations that are not inconsistent with the 
existing process..."
What "existing process"? There was a proposed one in the last draft 
Applicant Guidebook, but there is nothing currently "in existence". 
And if we will only use parts of the CWG recommendation that are 
consistent with the original proposal, what was the point of the exercise?
Alan


At 27/09/2010 10:27 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> >
> > I was thinking about this.  I am not sure that related directly to this
> > group.
>
>
> It does relate directly to this group. Here is the full text of 
> resolution 2.9:
> The Board acknowledges receipt of the Rec6CWG report. This is a 
> difficult issue, and the work of the community in developing these 
> recommendations is appreciated. The Board has discussed this 
> important issue for the past three years.
> The Board agrees that ultimate responsibility for the new gTLD 
> program rests with the Board. The Board, however, wishes to rely on 
> the determinations of experts regarding these issues.
> The Board will accept the Rec6 CWG recommendations that are not 
> inconsistent with the existing process, as this can be achieved 
> before the opening of the first gTLD application round, and will 
> work to resolve any inconsistencies. Staff will consult with the 
> Board for further guidance as required.