[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
icann at leap.com
Wed Aug 9 20:04:48 UTC 2017
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Jonathan Frost <jonathan at get.club> wrote:
> It's moot because the vast majority of registries will implement Sunrise
> even if not mandated.
For those now suggesting that the topic is "moot", then you should be
in support of ICANN eliminating the requirement (i.e. at best you'd be
indifferent), i.e. you should be supporting Jeremy's proposal, as it
would simplify the ICANN new gTLD process/guidebook, etc., and would
be one less policy for overworked volunteers to review every 5 or 10
or 20 years, etc. In other words, if the topic is "moot", why aren't
you backing Jeremy's proposal to eliminate it? It's nonsensical to me
to see an argument on the one hand that the topic is "moot" because
registries will still implement it, but then support its continuation
as a *mandated* ICANN policy requirement.
If we have consensus to support Jeremy's proposal now, I would
certainly not oppose moving on to other topics.
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg