[ALAC] BGC decision of NCSG reconsideration request on TM+50

[Avri Doria]

No Alan, that is not what I am saying.

I am saying that a Contractual Conditions PDP, made quite a few policy determinations a few years ago, and those should remain unchanged until such time as there is a new PDP.  And I am saying that any new implementation must remian in line with the previous PDP until such time as there is a new PDP.

avri



On 21 May 2013, at 20:56, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> At 21/05/2013 01:35 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> On 21 May 2013, at 06:40, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> 
>> > One of the arguments that registries have made is that
>> > this option was already discussed several years ago and was discarded
>> > at that time, SO IT SHOULD NOT BE RAISED AGAIN. In effect, the
>> > elimination of that option several years ago enshrined NOT doing it
>> > in effective policy.
>> 
>> at least not without another PDP to change the policy.
>> 
>> avri
> 
> So you are saying that something that was implementation several years ago when discussed during the various versions of the AG, is now policy, and moreover, it would require a PDP to change (not just a GNSO policy process but a formal PDP even though it is not a subject for Consensus Policy as per Bylaws Annex A - "If the GNSO is conducting activities that are not intended to result in a Consensus Policy, the Council may act through other processes.")
> 
> Alan 
>