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

["Brian Cute" <briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ron and Eric,

Thanks for the reactions and let me clarify.  I am not "overly optimistic"
nor do I view DAG4 as the end of the road.  The reason I thought this type
of communication might be necessary goes back to DAG3.  ICANN Staff added
"options" in DAG3 for vertical integration that many in the RySG felt did
not reflect suggestions and inputs we had provided to Staff -- in short, we
didn't know where some of the options came from.  The reason I think the
communication I suggested could be useful is to avoid the possibility of
Staff putting an updated placeholder of its own creation into DAG4 in the
absence of a placeholder from the VIWG.  And by placeholder from the VIWG, I
do not mean an interim proposal.  I simply mean a notation that the VIWG is
in the process of developing a proposed policy recommendation should suffice
in DAG4.  No more, no less.

Regards,
Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:57 PM
To: briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Proposed draft message to ICANN staff

Brian,

Your mail gives the impression that the Council created this PDP WG
for the purposes of _directly_ inserting content into DAGv4, even if
only "a placeholder in DAG4 that notes the above expression from the
VIWG pending our final report up to the GNSO Council".

Is that what you really mean?

If so, why?

Obviously, w.r.t. VI policy, DAGv4 isn't the end of the road, whether
it is called "Addenda X" or DAGv5. If there is a VI policy
recommendation informing Staff (Kurt, etc.) or the Board, it can't
happen before May 14th, and it has to happen before the DAG is
"final", or the Nairobi policy of zero (not yet clarified by Counsel)
cross ownership applies, at least to the current (hanging) round of
applications.

So what is the point of ghost writing a Mikey and Roberto missive?

Eric