[arin-ppml] Updates to 2012-6

[Robert E. Seastrom]

Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> writes:

> I think Rodney's comments are solid. Moves may also be involuntary and
> forcing transactions through the transfer process seems like
> unnecessary overhead that simply slows things down and could cause
> real damage.
>
> The terminology "ICANN sanctioned" is in error as well. ICANN doesn't
> sanction TLD's, they enter into agreements and become "contracted
> parties". It is consistent with ICANN terminology which I think that
> in this case it makes sense to align as much as possible and feasible.

There are two possible goals here and I think you may be conflating
them and falling into the "better is the enemy of good enough" trap.

The first goal is to patch existing policy such that a flood of new
vgTLDs (vanity gTLDs) does not suck what little life remains out of
the free pool.  Exigent circumstance, change as little as possible.

The second goal, if there's community support, is to clean up 4.4.  I
support doing this.

2012-6 supports the first goal, but doesn't really address the second.

I encourage you to suggest text, preferably on a policy template, so
we can move it forward in Barbados.  But please don't oppose 2012-6
simply because it doesn't fully address the deficiencies that you and
Rodney have identified in existing 4.4.  Those are problems that it
was not intended to fix.

I support 2012-6 as written, but our work is not done here.

-r