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

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support Ron's comments entirely.

Tony Harris
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron Andruff 
  To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
  Cc: 'Alan Greenberg' 
  Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 4:30 PM
  Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"


  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