<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Commencement of the new PDP
- To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Commencement of the new PDP
- From: Bret Fausett <bfausett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:41:35 -0800
- In-reply-to: <43EA2438.8070201@tucows.com>
- References: <1373936852-1139417096-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-3746-@engine19> <43EA2438.8070201@tucows.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
Ross Rader wrote:
I'd also like understand better what specifically the expert 3rd
parties would be retained to do. My initial instinct is that it is
premature to discuss the retention of experts before we understand the
questions and answers we are looking for.
I typically think of "expert" work as something on which specialized
knowledge, outside the common understanding of members of the counsel,
is required. On the .COM Agreement, when we're talking about what
contractual issues are properly GNSO policy issues, that strikes me as
exactly the sort of thing the Council can and should do on its own. To
the extent that we need expertise in registry services technical issues
and do not believe that we would get neutral, unbiased input from the
registries constituency (no offense intended, folks, just a possibility
whenever we have one constituency that is particularly affected by a
PDP), that might be another place where expertise would be helpful.
Bret
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|