RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It has been unfortunate that I have not been able to participate more fully
on the list during this past as well as the coming week, but at the same
time it is enlightening for me as I stepped from the lively debate only to
catch up on the multitude of posts a few days later.   

 

As I read through the various thoughts and positions - and polls - it
appears to me that several things are happening as we approach Brussels:

 

1.      The active members of the WG are so focused on ensuring that
whichever proposal they stand behind are promoted over all others that the
important questions that are being asked on the list are quickly passed over
on the list to move on to anything else that will win the day for one or
another's proposal rather than being given the serious thought and
consideration they deserve;
2.      Polls are being presented "to gain a clearer picture of where stand
- or where there is room to compromise" but they are corrupted because only
about 1/3 of the registered Working Group members are voting (the other 2/3
continue to lurk!), while at the same time it appears there is some seepage
coming in from outside the WG.  My recommendation: Let's stop using
misleading/confusing polls and get back to dialogue.  Clearly, what is
wholly unscientific is destined to become the reference points when in fact
they are no such thing.  The current poll - as has been noted by several
members - is NOT a referendum on where the WG is.  Rather it is nothing more
that what a few people think.  It is not a WG position by any stretch of the
imagination.

 

The WG needs to get re-focused and be more realistic about what we can and
what we can't do in the short term (Brussels), the middle term (final AG
cut-off date) and longer term (post 1st application round).  

 

Allan's post in response to Siva(/Milton) was exactly right.

 

>Then you need to define exactly who will negotiate what (and all parties to
a negotiation actually need to be talking to each other) and explain how
this will come to closure in sufficient time to publish the final Applicant
Guidebook. Many of us have wish-lists of what we would really like to see,
but the challenge is to finalize all of the details without delaying the
first round of applications.<

 

We need to stop trying to read the tea leaves with polls and recognize that
there is a lot of work ahead of us that needs to be done in an orderly
manner.  We need to stop the one-upmanship to try to position the proposal
each of supports for "the best reception in Brussels" by working together
this week to prepare a balanced report on where the WG stands at this early
stage of our mandate.  

 

While there appears to a lot of pressure building, it is quite clear that it
is all self-imposed to try force decisions.  I, for one, will not be
pressured into agreeing to something that I cannot support.  I stand by my
position that we need to continue researching and discussing ways forward -
particularly in the realm of compliance - until we come to the end of our
mandate and file our final report.  No amount of self-created pressure to
act before we have completed the requisite work will force a premature
agreement.

 

I believe that there are many other WG members who feel the same, whether
they respond to our posts or choose to continue to lurk.  I trust that our
F2F in Brussels will bear some real fruit if we can continue to work
collegially toward a common solution rather than continuing to talk about
"polarized positions".

 

Kind regards,

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 3:42 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"

 

At 11/06/2010 08:18 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:





On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx >
wrote:

At 11/06/2010 12:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:



Dear Milton Mueller,

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote: 

Another point (I am obviously in the process of filling out the poll)

The "free trade" proposal is not really a proposal but a philosophy or
approach. It says that we should have a more open market and that cross
ownership limits are not the proper tool for counteracting stated or
perceived harms. I agree. In this respect, it is identical to the CAM
proposal. However, it does not propose any specific method for preventing
harms.

 

As you have noticed and quoted in one of your later messages in this thread,
I have indicated some broad measures. A lot of work needs to be done in
identifying  harms, categorizing harms and ranking them in terms of the
intensity of harm to the Registrants / Internet. Then the penalties can be
discussed and after that it would have to be explored if some or most of the
harm can be contained by the Domain Industry by an internal code of good
practices. I don't feel that it would be practical for ICANN to announce a
table of harms and penalties and 'discipline' the domain industry like a
school master. Sooner or later the Domain Industry has to work within and
evolve practices that are fair to one another for a start, and then develop
and agree on good practices that are fair to the Internet and fair to ICANN
and fair to the Registrants. There would be some areas left out, some
practices on which the Domain Industry would be reluctant to restrain
itself. The community can look at those areas, focus on those areas and
negotiate with the Industry, prescribe measures to control those harms that
the Industry clings to. It is a lot of work, definitely not work for one
person, not in such a hurry.

Thank you for your positive remarks about the FT proposal.

 

The problem with this is that ICANN will not be in a position to take ANY
action if the causes for action (ie the harms or actions that lead to them)
and the remedies are not codified in the appropriate contracts. And that
included the contracts with the accredited registrars. So it cannot be left
to community discussions after-the-fact.


I did not say after-the-fact.  


Then you need to define exactly who will negotiate what (and all parties to
a negotiation actually need to be talking to each other) and explain how
this will come to closure in sufficient time to publish the final Applicant
Guidebook.

Many of us have wish-lists of what we would really like to see, but the
challenge is to finalize all of the details without delaying the first round
of applications.

Alan