ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] The New GNSO PDP

  • To: bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [ga] The New GNSO PDP
  • From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 05:47:24 -0800 (PST)
  • Cc: vint@xxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=104Rqe+RiluaXTdNTskR3MKBb3+Z2hAqF3IGDIo1vB1f+4aDCOPsjUGEWWp/Bx3yCGllqjDXWidyk4SaTHTUgWyT1M4sFpZKJgdFC4x4IRWKaBaXi+ebsCeST8ZtyZuVNki1xmBP7jBy2GnYZbjQ1RXz6NguzG9KyTow00i/NZk= ;
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Vint and Bruce,

As a member of the public that will soon be providing
comments on the most recent PDP (approved by the
Council yesterday), I will admit to being thoroughly
confused by the current process.

The prior PDP (inaugurated on 2 December 2005) asked
the public to comment on "Policy to Guide Contractual
Conditions for New Top Level Domains" (point #4 in the
Terms of Reference).

Three days into this PDP, the public was also provided
with this comment from the ICANN Board:  

 "We also note the existence of a policy development
process on new gTLDs and strongly believe that this
policy development process should be informed by the
results of the comments received on the proposed
contract for .com and settlement with VeriSign."

Now we have a new PDP that appears to be covering the
very same policy ground that was enumerated in the
prior PDP.  May I ask what new areas are covered by
yesterday's PDP that can't be covered within the
context of "policies for contractual conditions" as
cited in the prior PDP?

Everything cited in the Issues Report prepared by Olof
Nordling and Liz Williams seems to point to policy
concerns over contractual conditions.  Sorry, but I
don't understand why a new PDP is required.

Can you clarify this matter?

Best regards,
Danny Younger

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>