Re: [council] Procedural concerns with gtld-com.

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2003-05-19 10:26:21 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> In a posting to the gTLDs committee, the ALAC representative, has
> expressed her concern about some of the report's recommendations.
> These concerns typically speculate on possible implementation
> strategies of the report's recommendations.  It was not the job
> of this committee to discuss the implementation strategies. That
> is future work.

If all possible implementation strategies compatible with a given
design lead to undesired results, then the design itself is flawed
and should be discarded.  If there is an example for a likely
implementation of the draft final report's design to which the
ALAC's concerns don't apply, we'd like to hear about it.

> The main concern expressed by Thomas I understand is that
> opportunities for public comment have been lacking because there
> was no policy development process (PDP). Let me remind Council
> that the committee has done exactly what it said it would do (see
> list posting of 3 February 2003). Did the Board choose to
> initiate a PDP itself? No. Did Council recommend a PDP at this
> early stage? No.

Answering a brief question briefly requires less process than
reinterpreting the question and giving a broad answer.  At this
early stage, only the brief consensus statement appears to be
warranted without public comment in a full PDP.

-- 
Thomas Roessler				<roessler@does-not-exist.org>