Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: First Draft of VI Initial Report v.1

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff E, the fact is that I - and four others that I know of - did not have 
their votes counted in a wholly unscientific poll.   Further our co-chair Mikey 
told everyone on the call today that he did not intend to try to aggregate the 
data from the poll . That means that the poll in question will remain open past 
the initial report deadlinmes. 

RA 
  
________________________________________
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.rnapartners.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:33:25 
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: First Draft of VI Initial Report v.1

Here are my comments on the Initial Draft Report, some of these may be have 
sent to the list so far, but will include just in case:

Executive Summary

*         I do favor the language that states if there is strict separation 
then an exceptions procedure should be incorporated. This is what I was trying 
to state as a baseline on the call today

*         I still am not sure that there is consensus for SRSU exception since 
we do not have an agreed upon SRSU exception and should thus not be included as 
a standalone but be part of exceptions

Section 2

*         Please remove the term AGBv4. We are already swimming in alphabet 
soup and everyone already knows DAGv4

Section 4

*         After reading this I am in favor of including in the report and am OK 
with the edits KK and others have added as they seem impartial. I would not be 
opposed to changing the title or if forced to place in Annex, but would prefer 
in report

Section 5.1

*         I believe this sentence is overly critical and I am not sure this is 
the view of many. Would agree that people raised concerns but to say many 
raised serious concerns about the ability to actually function does not feel 
representative of the group "Many also noted that ICANN's track record raises 
serious concerns about ICANN's ability to develop, staff and make operationally 
effective an enforcement bureau function that would be necessary to monitor and 
enforce against harms or violations of rules developed by the VIWG.

Section 5.2

*         I would suggest we add the sentence that is in the Executive Summary 
that states if ICANN adopts a requirement of strict separation, when explaining 
exceptions


Last but not least, I truly believe that the poll and its results should be 
included in this report. I do not think we need any commentary around it, just 
to state this poll was sent around on this date, prior to the issuance of the 
initial report. Here are the results from the respondents.  People can read the 
questions and the answers and draw their conclusions.
This poll is an output of this Working Group and is reflective of the months 
and months of calls and discussions that we had. First off I think the idea to 
hide it in plain sight by saying it is on the public list so why should we 
include it is plain and simple, an attempt to hide it. If it is on the public 
list and can be accessed then let's include it. Why make it harder for people 
to see the poll.
Second, to say that people were causal or just goofing off when they filled 
this out is a prejudicial assumption that unfairly discounts members 
participation and is a blatant attempt to de-emphasize the poll and its results.
I do agree that we must wait for the poll to be complete before it is included 
in the initial report.


Regards,

Jeff Eckhaus



From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 7:24 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] First Draft of VI Initial Report v.1
Importance: High

Dear All,

In preparation for the call VI call tomorrow,  please find attached the First 
Draft of the Initial Report for your review and consideration.

As you review this Draft, please note that:


*         Due to the size of the document (currently over 90 pages!)  I have 
excluded the annexes and provide only the text of the report.

*         The SRSU description is especially thin and needs further content 
from IPC representatives and from NCSG representatives.

*         Please disregard any formatting issues as I will be doing a more 
thorough review of the document as it becomes more final.

*         Once the results of the poll are in,  someone will need to draft 
content with any observations that to be included in Section 6.

Unfortunately, I will not be on tomorrow's call, but Marika will manage the 
call in my absence.    I will be in an all-day meeting in MDR, and will follow 
up with Marika after the VI call.

Best regards,

Margie

____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
____________

________________________________
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.