Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Initial Report -- Compliance section

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

how about language that makes it more clear that this is a list of 
possibilities for consideration rather than a recommendation as to approach?


On Jul 22, 2010, at 9:31 AM, Ron Andruff wrote:

> 
> Compliance -- serious compliance -- is the one thing that everyone on the WG
> agrees with in some form or another.  Supplying Readers with a list of the
> types of things that we are talking about is important in this Interim
> Draft.  I don't think any of us actually believe that ICANN staff will take
> this list and write it into the final Applicant Guidebook, so, for my part,
> I think we should go with it and -- like all of this report -- tighten up
> those things that need it when we get to our Final Report.
> 
> In short, leave the compliance piece as is for now.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:53 AM
> To: Antony Van Couvering; briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx Cute
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Initial Report -- Release-candidate draft is
> out on the wiki
> 
> 
> hi all,
> 
> looks like we've got a few ways to go here...
> 
> -- the drafting-group could develop a replacement that works better for all
> 
> -- the offending list could get chopped off the draft
> 
> -- we could amplify the "this is a draft" header to make it clear that this
> one is pretty far from agreement
> 
> what say you drafting-group folks.  how about one more try at getting this
> one a bit closer to agreement.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> On Jul 21, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I see that the kitchen sink full of specific compliance measures, which
> were never discussed, much less agreed to, and of which many only make sense
> in certain models, are back in the compliance draft.   They certainly cannot
> be qualified as principles that I agree with -- and others have seconded
> this.  
>> 
>> The compliance draft states:  "Where there seems to be agreement is in the
> notion that an effect Compliance function is needed -- to increase
> confidence that harmful behavior will be quickly identified and stopped, and
> to provide better information upon which to base policy in the future."  I
> with agree to this, but in a general sense only.  This sentence, followed by
> the kitchen sink list, suggest that there "seems to be agreement" on the
> kitchen sink.   There isn't.  That is a mischaracterization. 
>> 
>> The drafter of this list first ignored my timely comment, which was
> seconded by Milton Mueller, and subsequently suggested that my amendments,
> which I provided in a red-lined Word doc, were too late and without support.
> Neither of these implications are true, and I strongly object to my entirely
> reasonable points being ignored.
>> 
>> Apart from the fact that many of these items don't make any logical sense
> from the perspective of ICANN enforcement, a drafter for a group has an
> obligation to be neutral and listen to others, air objections, and try to
> find consensus.   This happened in the exceptions drafting group, where my
> suggestions were overruled by the others.  That was fair, and I acceded to
> their correct observations that my suggestions did not have consensus either
> in the wider group or within our drafting subgroup.  
>> 
>> In the compliance group, however, things have proceeded rather
> differently.  Even when I proposed alternate language, and others agreed
> with me, we were ignored.  
>> 
>> If the itemized list of compliance measures stay in there, I will have to
> forcefully dissent.  These items are a wish-list of the drafter, and not the
> result of group input.  
>> 
>> Antony
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 21, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> hi all,
>>> 
>>> the latest (and hopefully final) version of the Initial Report is out on
> the wiki.  here's the link;
>>> 
>>> 
> https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?initial_report_snapshots
>>> 
>>> i think we've achieved reasonable balance -- a report that everybody
> dislikes about equally.  :-)
>>> 
>>> mikey
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>> phone       651-647-6109  
>>> fax                 866-280-2356  
>>> web         http://www.haven2.com
>>> handle      OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
> Google, etc.)
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone         651-647-6109  
> fax           866-280-2356  
> web   http://www.haven2.com
> handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
> etc.)
> 

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)