Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Regarding the Nairobi Board Resolution

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Also happy to take the matter to the attention of the AT-RT  let me know and
I will forward to that list Michael and/OR any one can put up any issue they
wish me to raise in the AT-RT work  via the wiki page
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_workspace_on_the_accountability_and_transparency_review_team
short URL=> for any one to tweet with #ICANN & #ATRT is
http://bit.ly/dlJSk8  <http://bit.ly/dlJSk8>
<http://bit.ly/dlJSk8>
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 13 May 2010 10:41, Michael D. Palage <michael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Kurt,
>
>
>
> While I personally have no problem with the Nairobi resolution appearing in
> DAG#4, I find ICANN’s refusal (Board/Staff) to answer legitimate questions
> put forward in good faith from this group deeply troubling on many levels.
>
>
>
> First, the ICANN Board in connection with its Nairobi resolution changed
> the status quo, by imposing zero cross ownership. Under Paragraph 4 of the
> Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) “ICANN commits to perform and publish
> analyses of the positive and negative effects of its decisions on the
> public, including any financial impact on the public, and the positive or
> negative impact (if any) on the systemic security, stability and resiliency
> of the DNS.”  Additionally, Paragraph 7 imposed upon ICANN a commitment to
> “to provide a thorough and reasoned explanation of decisions taken, the
> rationale thereof and the sources of data and information on which ICANN
> relied.”
>
>
>
> Now as the ICANN Board is well aware there are a number of commercial
> interests that are potentially negatively impacted as a result of the
> Nairobi resolution.  To date I have seen no data or information upon which
> ICANN relied upon in passing this resolution. If it does exist can ICANN
> please provide me a copy of this data/information. If this data/information
> does  not exist, I would respectfully request that ICANN reconsider its
> refusal to answer the legitimate questions that this Working Group properly
> submitted to them.
>
>
>
> I am not trying to be difficult, but I believe that ICANN has certain
> obligations set forth in the AoC and refusing to answer legitimate questions
> in response to a resolution in which they provided no rationale or
> information deeply troubling. Can you please reconfirm that ICANN
> (Board/staff) has no intention of answering the legitimate questions that
> this Working Group initially put forward.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Kurt Pritz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2010 2:20 PM
>
> *To:* Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gnso-vi-feb10] Regarding the Nairobi Board Resolution
>
>
>
> Members of the Vertical Integration Working Group:
>
> This is the first contact I have had directly with you as a group – I want
> to start by thanking you for the interest and hard work put into the
> vertical integration issues. I have attended several of the calls and read
> the mail list. A tremendous amount of thought has been devoted to developing
> a vertical integration model for this new gTLD marketplace.
>
> Some time ago, representatives of the group forwarded a set of questions to
> the ICANN Board regarding the Nairobi Board resolution on the vertical
> integration issue. The working group authored the set of specific questions
> to clarify the meaning of the resolution in order to inform the work of the
> group.
>
> The Board discussed the questions posed by the group and considered a set
> of possible answers. In the end, the collective Board members’ opinions
> indicated that the Board will not provide advice for your group in response
> to the questions.  The Board took note that the task set out for the GNSO –
> and through it, for the working group – was to develop a policy
> recommendation regarding the vertical structure of the name registration
> marketplace, starting with a “blank sheet of paper.“ The Board comments
> indicated that the resolution was crafted, in part, to give the GNSO the
> widest possible latitude in crafting a structure.
>
> The Board also indicated that the next version of the proposed Guidebook
> and the gTLD implementation will be guided by the Nairobi Board resolution,
> unless superseded by a GNSO recommended, Board approved policy.
>
> I realize some time has passed since the questions were originally posed
> and am gratified that the working group has continued to prosecute this task
> with all possible vigour. After considering this issue myself, I think the
> sense of the Board on this issue is correct. The policy advice on this issue
> should come from the consensus of the constituent groups, and should not be
> influenced by the input of the ICANN’s directors.
>
> Again, please accept my thanks for the hard work to date and also my
> willingness to respond to questions or issues on any of the vertical
> integration discussion points.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
> Kurt Pritz
>
> ICANN
>