Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] how to reach consensus

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

But the direemption seems to be more for some kind of change or against any 
kind of change.  I am not sure how we bridge that.

I do not think we are arguing no separation versus full separation any longer.  

i think we are arguing full separation versus some possibility of relaxation of 
separation under certain circumstances with verification, enforcement and 
equivalent access.

And on the cross-ownership issue we are at an impasse between the incumbent 
fixed maximum at 15% versus the possibility of more if no harms are perceived.

a.

On 4 Jun 2010, at 11:43, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> The Board resolution and the resulting DAGv4 language is all about that: 
> whether we as a group can move beyond the impasse that we have always seen on 
> the Vi issue, where you basically have 2 camps facing off and no-one is 
> willing to move a little towards some middle ground, or whether we are not, 
> dare I say, mature enough to do so.
> 
> I think it would be not be good to see such tight separation stay in place 
> for the first round, but absent some willingness to accept the other side's 
> point of view, I agree with you it may well be the only solution we have left.
> 
> That is why the Board acted the way it did, because it realised there was no 
> way proponents of "no separation" or "full separation" would ever come 
> together to offer a rational middle-ground solution unless they were put in a 
> position where they had to reach consensus. If we are still not there, then 
> let's stay with the current impasse and we'll just all have to live with the 
> DAGv4 language. I think that would be a pity because I can see a lot of cases 
> where, should strict separation be applied in that way, TLD initiatives that 
> are currently being worked on will simply not see the light of day.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 4 juin 2010 à 10:59, Avri Doria a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> In terms of find consensus, I am wondering whether we can.  Despite my 
>> optimism yesterday about the value of locking us in a room until we reached 
>> consensus (did someone say throw away the key?) I have started to have 
>> concerns.
>> 
>> In looking at the proposals, they do seem to divide along one line:  
>> 
>> - those that look at pretty much getting back to the incumbent status quo 
>> that existed before DAGv3 and the Board 0-2% Co-owenership motion
>> - those that for various reasons think a change is needed to support 
>> innovation and other needs
>> 
>> I expect that those who want to go back to the incumbent conditions pre 
>> DAGv3/Board conditions are able to come to consensus and it seems they 
>> largely have.
>> 
>> And I expect that those who want various changes could probably also come to 
>> consensus.
>> 
>> But I am not sure I see how those wanting change and those wanting to return 
>> to the incumbent status quo will reach consensus.
>> 
>> Given this, I find the solution proposed by the staff in DAGv4, based on the 
>> Board's prescription might be the right solution for this first round, with 
>> perhaps some tightening for Registry/RSP ownership of Resellers, at least 
>> until we find some way to move beyond the no-change/change dichotomy.    If 
>> playing it safe is our guiding principle as some have indicated it should 
>> be, then perhaps DAGv4 is the safest way to go.
>> 
>> I think it might actually also be the safest in terms of possible harms and 
>> I propose that when we do our harms analysis, the DAGv4 implementation be 
>> included as one of the lines.  Might also be worth including it in Kathy's 
>> Table.
>> 
>> To be certain I still support CAM and am still willing to work for consensus 
>> with all those who are looking for change.  I am not, however, heartened by 
>> the current impasse.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>