Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

My read of the Board resolution is that if this group does not produce 
deliverables in time to include them in DAGv4 and final AG, then the Board will 
go with its current total separation stance.

That to me is a clever way to 1) get all those people with strong and diverse 
opinions on VI whom so far have found it impossible to agree on anything to try 
and reach consensus and 2) make sure that if they don't, a solution is there 
meaning that this overarching issue will no longer delay the new gTLD program.

As the total separation solution is probably the least palatable to most 
people, option 1 may stand a good chance.

One solution might be phasing, as long as it is as Avri suggests: i.e. we work 
on a "quick solution" for round 1 and are able to leave certain issues that we 
would find more complex to agree on aside for later policy development.

Stéphane

Le 23 mars 2010 à 22:13, Roberto Gaetano a écrit :

> 
> I am glad you are explaining in detail the phasing concept.
> Seen this way, as a tool to get something done quickly ("getting the low
> hanging fruits", for instance, but not limited to that), while not being
> delayed by discussions on matters of principle, or just on more complicated
> issues, it can be a good way to achieve results.
> Of course, the question is then on what will be part of "release 1" and what
> will be postponed, and whether "release 1" is still meaningful, i.e. whether
> it has "enough fruits".
> I assume that the role of the co-chairs might be relevant in shaping what is
> in the scope of the first release, but I also hope that we will have
> substantial support from the team.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 19:08
>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> As one of those who spoke in favor of phasing, let me explain myself.
>> 
>> In any phasing, dealing with recommendations for the current 
>> round should be phase I and should be completed as quickly as 
>> possible without any deviations for side issues.
>> 
>> If, on the other hand there are more complicated issues that 
>> we want to consider with relation to incumbent practice or 
>> what would pertain in future rounds that is the stuff I would 
>> recommend for a second phase.  Additionally, if for example 
>> we decide on a set of practices that are ok for this current 
>> round, but then decide that we want to consider what happens 
>> when conditions change and the registry wants to change its 
>> model , that is an issue I would defer to a second phase.  On 
>> the other hand if we set a bunch conditions related to 
>> co/cross ownership for new first round registries and want to 
>> consider allowing an incumbent to adopt that model, that too 
>> is something I would recommend pushing off to a later phase.  
>> BTW, I would not be surprised in some of these hypothetical 
>> issues required going back to the GNSO for a charter renewal 
>> at some point (not recommending that for now).
>> 
>> In short I recommend phasing and the creation of a phase II 
>> so that we have a place to put any issue that comes up that 
>> does not immediately affect the current new gTLD process.  
>> For all of the stuff related to this round - I hope we have  
>> our recommendations in time for Brussels, if not before.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>