<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Preliminary IR on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse
- To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] Preliminary IR on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:35:45 -0400
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In reviewing this report related to whether the ALAC should comment
on it or not, a question came to mind.
I do not disagree with the staff assessment that this subject is
within the scope of the GNSO. However, it is far from clear to me if
this effort needs to be a GNSO effort. For the most part, it would
seem that this the work could be carried out as a staff effort (not
necessarily Policy Staff although they might be involved) if it was
of sufficiently high priority to ICANN.
Although the end work product could be viewed as GNSO Policy, it
could also fall under the heading of contractual terms which often is
an outcome of bilateral negotiations and not formal GNSO action. The
only benefit I see of it coming through the GNSO is that then there
is a higher threshold for the Board to not implement. And even if
this is necessary, that does not see a valid reason that it falls on
the GNSO to do the very significant research involved instead of it
being a staff (or externally contracted), ICANN funded, effort.
Alan
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|