[ncsg-policy] RE: [NCUC-DISCUSS] brief report on NCSG Policy Discussion Wednesday 6 January

[Avri Doria]

On 10 Jan 2010, at 02:45, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> So, Rec. 19 merely calls for separation of registries and registrars at the technical, contractual level and for equal access. The policies I proposed in the NCUC position statement maintain such separation and retain equal access, so there is no conflict with Rec. 19 whatsoever. The policies proposed by the registries, ALSO maintain separation and thus do not conflict with Rec. 19. 


Let me see if I understand, the argument is that this is not a change in the status quo because it just implements loophole behaviors currently being used. 

If this is so, isn't the formalization/legitimization of a loophole also a change in the status quo as it will no longer be a loophoe?

I personally still believe that whatever the case, blessing of business as normal or changed policy, that any approvals of a Registry selling its own TLD should be specifically approved post-allocation in a RSEP process that confirms that a set of conditions have been met (ie. 'no one else will sell my name' or '.brand'.  I think this should be the case until such time as there is a PDP (which are _not_ only meant for in-scope consensus policy) which after proper bottom-up process recommends a new set of policies for VI/CO/JM/RR.

a.