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

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

I have no interest in attacking the Board. I think all Jeff and I want is
the Board to actually clarify what the resolution means, because there is
some ambiguity in the current wording. I appreciate the Board allowing the
community trying to resolve this issue, however, there is an obligation
under the AoC for them to actual explain the basis of their decision.
Taking unilateral action that changes the status quo with no explanation,
and recognizing that their actions would have a clear economic impact on
certain parties is wrong.

While I appreciate the good intention of the resolution, as the old saying
goes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Should there be no consensus within this group, parties have a right to know
how staff is going to interpret the Nairobi resolution, NOW, not after they
spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

Best regards,

Michael


 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:53 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Regarding the Nairobi Board Resolution


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