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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I tend to see this differently.

The GNSO  initiated a PDP and the Board has cleared the table of preconditions 
and has given us a free path to do what we said we were going to do.  We asked 
for it, they gave it to us.  Now that we are getting down to the nitty gritty 
of actually making compromise, we decide to turn our energies toward attacking 
the board.  This makes no sense to me.

I would hate to see us waste this opportunity by now beginning to spend our 
energy on deciding what the Board may or may not have intended.  I admit Kurt's 
message could have been written better, but the point is the GNSO asked for the 
chance to define what went into the DAG and we are not getting it done.

a.


On 13 May 2010, at 02:41, Michael D. Palage 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