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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I am in strong agreement with Avri. I think Kurt (and the Board's) message is 
helpful in providing clarity to this group.

Of particular use I think is the sentence reiterating the fact that UNLESS a 
new policy supersedes it, the Nairobi Board resolution will be in DAGv4. To 
some extent, I still think there is misunderstanding within the WG about the 
fact that unless it produces results quickly, the first round will be run under 
strict separation. I therefore consider this sentence extremely useful to aid 
the WG in understanding the larger context it is operating in.

It's now up to us to come up with a solution in time, or risk seeing the first 
round run under strict separation, an outcome that many would not be happy with.

I personally think the Board acted well to stop this issue from dragging on 
another 2 years. The solution for the final AG is there. If we don't like it, 
it's up to us to do something about it. But one option we no longer have is to 
just delay things further and further. I think that's a good thing.

Stéphane 

Le 13 mai 2010 à 08:23, Michael D. Palage a écrit :

> 
> 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
> 
> 
>