[128222] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: I slogged through it so you don't have to -- ICANN Vertical
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jorge Amodio)
Mon Jul 26 20:46:20 2010
In-Reply-To: <4C4DEB87.7040400@nic-naa.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:46:07 -0500
From: Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@gmail.com>
To: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Being one of the rare known external readers, is there any bit of it you
> have a view on not already reflected in the para above and below?
There is another dimension to the whole enchilada that makes a
compromise a moving shooting target.
Some of the entities at the table don't like or want at all new gTLDs,
today they may say "we like milkshakes with anchovies and we can live
with that" (not really), tomorrow they will say "we only drink our
brand of tomato juice".
At least a byproduct of the outcome of this WG is that as observers we
are getting a more clear picture of who is on each side today before
any compromise.
GNSO was very explicit that this can not introduce additional delays
to the gTLD program so sooner or later a compromise position is
needed, what if the GNSO is not able to provide a recommendation on
time, what the BoD will do ?
Regards
Jorge
