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

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1

I really like Avri's suggestion.  It helps frame the compliance
section and I think it also helps towards some of Antony's points
raised as an issue.

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax



On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Brian Cute <bcute@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Mikey,
>
> I think this would be a good approach.
>
> Regards,
> Brian
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:37:21
> To: Ron Andruff<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Initial Report -- Compliance section
>
>
> 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.)
>
>
>
>