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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

with correction - trying to work at the same time i process this deluge. 


Hi,

I was not saying it was a minimum.

it was a list of what _may_ be considered. 
but other things _may_ be consider too.

a.

On 22 Jul 2010, at 13:52, Antony Van Couvering wrote:

> I continue to be astonished that exceptions, apart from the special SRSU 
> case, cannot be mentioned in any detail, despite significant discussion of 
> them, while a very long list of compliance measures, which received no 
> significant discussion at all, is included in its entirety, despite logical 
> inconsistencies and reliance for its significance on the adoption of 
> particular models. 
> 
> If staff is not going to use this list, what is the point of including it?  
> If they are, what is the harm of supplying it to them separately?
> 
> It is not correct to suggest that this list of compliance measures has 
> general agreement.  It doesn't. 
> 
> I do not agree that Avri's suggestion that the list is a minimum ("not 
> limited to...").  That is worse than the original wording, which at least 
> didn't suggest that there would be an even more onerous and pointless 
> regulatory burden than the list implies.   There has been no discussion of 
> the cost of these measures, their effectiveness, or the harms they would 
> prevent.  
> 
> Antony
> 
> 
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 8:00 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>> hi,
>> 
>> I agree.  
>> 
>> Perhaps we can modify:
>> 
>>> Among the elements of an effective compliance and enforcement program are 
>>> the following:
>> 
>> to say
>> 
>> The elements of an effective compliance and enforcement program that may be 
>> considered as discussion proceed include, but are not limited to, the 
>> following:
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> On 22 Jul 2010, at 10:31, 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.)
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>