RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Proposed draft message to ICANN staff

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

With respect to Brian's optimism, I, for one, do NOT think that the VI WG
will have established any concrete planks toward our mandate in time for DAG
4, neither for the final AG.  

 

What I see shaping up is a divergence of thinking that goes in two distinct
directions, i.e., those that are more supportive of VI and those that are
more supportive of adhering to the status quo (maintaining the tried and
tested structure that has been in place for the past decade).  

 

In my view, we need to be realistic about what we will/will not achieve as a
result of this WG and consider promoting the concept of finalizing an
Applicant Guidebook as soon as possible, recognizing that no matter how hard
the community continues to try to refine it, it will most certainly need
some kind of re-tooling after the 'first round' or batch of applicants test
the systems, as it were.  This WG should take the necessary time to do our
work thoroughly without predetermined timelines forcing the VI WG to
compromise on a solution that will not be able to stand the test of time
going forward.  

 

I don't believe that a delay in integrating our work product into the AG v2
(or not, should the outcome of our efforts be a recommendation to maintain
the status quo) will harm those applicants that we are working hard to find
solutions for, neither their intended users.  'Difficult' new TLD applicants
(e.g., brands, small communities, etc.) could, and in my view, should, be
put in a separate queue until such time as any and all issues that cloud
those applications (such as VI) have been clarified.  All others that are
straightforward should be allowed to get into the queue for immediate
processing to allow ICANN to initiate the application process in 2010.  

 

Holding everything up until the ICANN community believes we have addressed
every issue is a fool's errand.  Be sure, no matter how hard we try to
address every aspect of this, there will be issues and implications that
arise only after the first batch of new gTLD applications have been
processed.  What is at stake is not only the loss of credibility of
applicants in the eyes of their 'communities', investors and the like, as
has been often cited at open mikes and other for a, but also of ICANN's
credibility as an institution.  For 3+ years ICANN (that is, all of us as
part of the community of ICANN) has been trying to bring new TLDs to market.
Delaying this into 4 and then 5 years while we try to 'get everything just
right' serves no one.

 

Therefore, let's be sure that the VI WG does its work in an appropriate way
in an appropriate time frame and NOT link anything we are doing to the
initiation of new TLD applications.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Brian Cute
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:02 PM
To: 'Brian Cute'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Proposed draft message to ICANN staff

 

Apologies for the reference to the "call today" since there is none.  Can we
discuss this on the list?

 

From: Brian Cute [mailto:briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:59 PM
To: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Proposed draft message to ICANN staff

 

Mikey and Roberto,

 

I took the liberty of drafting a possible message from the VIWG to the ICANN
staff in relation to the deadline of May 14 for submissions to be included
in DAG4.  (I hope you don't mind.)  Could we discuss this item on the call
today?

 

Regards,

Brian

 

 

 

Dear Kurt,

 

As Co-Chairs of the Vertical Integration Working Group, we write to you
concerning the approaching deadline for submissions to be included in DAG4.
As of today, the VIWG does not have a proposal to submit for inclusion in
DAG4.  The VIWG has been working hard - with roughly 60 participants, weekly
meetings and over 1500 email exchanges in a serious attempt to produce a
consensus based proposal.  While the VIWG does not have a specific proposal
at this time, we will continue to work toward the goal of presenting a
consensus based proposal to the GNSO Council (and the Board) in advance of
ICANN's Brussels meeting.  The VIWG requests that Staff consider keeping a
placeholder in DAG4 that notes the above expression from the VIWG pending
our final report up to the GNSO Council.

 

Best regards,

Roberto Gaetano

Mikey O'Connor