<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
Milton Mueller wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:sffd9d13.029@gwia201.syr.edu">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Harold Feld <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:hfeld@mediaaccess.org"><hfeld@mediaaccess.org></a> 01/08/04 05:57PM >>><br></pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I don't think a consultation requirement is overly regulatory. I do <br>think the need for consultation is greater, and consultation is easier, <br>in smaller communities.<br></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!----><br>I don't disagree, but...<br><br>a) this is not a "consultation requirement" among <br>the community of gTLD registrants that is being<br>proposed, it is a "quick look" administered by ICANN staff,<br>followed by more extensive procedures, which <br>may involve consultation with the ENTIRE community if <br>controversy emerges;</pre>
</blockquote>
Blech. ICANN staff are not qualified to make such a judgment. Nor is it
clear to me that the entire community should care one way or the other about
registry changes (caveats about dominant registries not withstanding).<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:sffd9d13.029@gwia201.syr.edu">
<pre wrap="">b) isn't there some virtue in having the procedure be <br>the same for all registries? <br></pre>
</blockquote>
There is. My thought was that where the issue could be approached with granularity
because of the community dynamic, this would be better. But in ICANN-land
I suppose it is better to err on the side of uniformity than flexibility.<br>
<br>
Harold<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:sffd9d13.029@gwia201.syr.edu">
<pre wrap=""><br><br><br><br><br></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>