RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
- To: "Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:40:14 -0700
I agree. Well said Ron.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, June 14, 2010 8:50 am
To: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'Alan Greenberg'" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
I support Ron's comments entirely.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Andruff
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:
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 anothers proposal rather than being given the serious thought
and consideration they deserve; 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: Lets 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
The WG needs to get re-focused and be more realistic about what we can
and what we cant do in the short term (Brussels), the middle term
(final AG cut-off date) and longer term (post 1st application round).
Allans 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.
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 3:42 PM
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>
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
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
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.