One or two PDPs?

[Milton L Mueller]

Mary:
FYI, an attempt to summarize so you can perhaps make up your own mind:

> > Currently the 2 motions are either to (1) delay a PDP for a year
> (proposed by the Registrars); or (2) initiate a PDP (along fairly broad
> lines to look at vertical integration for both new and existing gTLDs,
> proposed by the Commercial Stakeholder Group).

A correction: there is no vertical integration of existing TLDs. Existing TLDs, even when they employ JM/CO, are not vertically integrated. 

In favor of 1): 
 - VI issues are long term and involve major changes in policy, fees, etc. 
 - Bundling JM/CO together with VI would require separate decisions and processes anyway. 
 - JM/CO is not a policy change, it is happening already
 - A PDP on the bigger issues should happen but to do so now simply holds up the many new entrants (not vertically integrated) who would thrive if they could do JM/CO but would die with either no JM/CO or another years' delay.

Against 1): 
- JM/CO is a policy change
- JM/CO is closely related to VI and so the issues should be considered together. 

I am not sure (asomeone more procedurally up on GNSO needs to answer this) but in her private fulminations to me Avri said something to the effect that the GNSO must review and approve the DAG when it is finished. IF so, I believe that this is the magical solution to our dilemma because the review of the DAG allows the opponents and supporters of JM/CO to have their debate without a PDP. 

--MM