Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Public Comment: Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries

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

hi Stéphane

the plan is to forward the Initial report to the Board for consideration at 
their retreat.  that's what's in the timeline that i discussed with Chuck.  
same dates, just revised-Initial rather than Final report...

i really favor this approach - partly because of how hard it would be to 
resolve the issues we've got on the table in (effectively) just a few weeks.  
but (making things up here, being a Guy, don't place a lot of credence on this 
next bit) also because it opens up the door for the Board to give us a 
course-correction as we drive toward the Final report.  i could imagine a 
situation where the Board takes a hard look at our Initial report during the 
retreat, makes some preliminary decisions and asks us to fold that into our 
process.  did i mention that i'm making all that up?  we'll see how things 
develop...

mikey


On Jul 24, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> I'm surprised that Chuck wouldn't push for the group to provide it's final 
> report asap, and certainly in time for it to be used by the Board at it's 
> September retreat. But as you point out, the timing may just be too tough to 
> achieve that. Let's hope the Board still takes into account the work the WG 
> has done, if it decides to come to a final decision on VI during it's 
> retreat...
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone4
> 
> Le 24 juil. 2010 à 14:29, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
>> hi Stéphane
>> 
>> thanks a lot for the kind words.  here in the Midwestern part of the US 
>> we're pretty undemonstrative, so you'll just have to imagine me hanging my 
>> head, shuffling my feet and muttering "aw shucks."  :-)
>> 
>> just one quick clarification on the August deadline.  Chuck has asked us to 
>> deliver an "updated Interim report" for the August 26th Council meeting, not 
>> a Final report.  i noticed this when we were trading date/deadline email and 
>> phoned him up to confirm that.  after which i heaved a huge sigh of relief.  
>> we've buried some pretty tough issues in those 3 Principles Annexes and i 
>> was really scratching my head over how we were ever going to get those 
>> resolved in 3 weeks, during Holiday season.
>> 
>> turns out, we don't have to.  basically, the only thing we **have** to do 
>> between now and then is update the Interim report we've submitted with a 
>> summary of the public comments.  everything else we decide to drive into 
>> that report is a bonus.  if we can resolve some of those issues, great.  if 
>> we can't, we'll leave them as is and work on them at a more relaxed pace, 
>> maybe after we've gotten a hint from the results of the September Board 
>> retreat.  
>> 
>> that said, i'd like us to spend the call on Monday trying to figure out a 
>> reasonable list of things that we think we *can* sharpen up for the draft we 
>> submit to the Council.  it seems to me the biggest opportunities are:
>> 
>> - identify the major points of disagreement in the 3 Principles annexes, and 
>> then focus on a few that we think we can might be able to resolve in the 3 
>> weeks we've got 
>> 
>> - continue to mash and merge and combine and blend Proposals to see if we 
>> can arrive at a smaller number, and perhaps one that has enough support that 
>> we could move from "no consensus" to "rough consensus with a strong minority"
>> 
>> that said, if everybody throws rocks at me and shouts "lighten up, Mikey" 
>> i'll heed your wishes.  Mikey the Super-Pressure Ogre has left the stage.  
>> :-)
>> 
>> thanks again Stéphane,
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 24, 2010, at 5:36 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>> 
>>> Mikey,
>>> 
>>> You deserve an amazingly large round of applause in my view. You've steered 
>>> the group through tense moments and an incredibly tough schedule with a 
>>> constant sense of humour and of purpose. In my part of the world, people 
>>> would probably say you're just a genuine good bloke. I agree.
>>> 
>>> Well done to Roberto and all the Staff support people as well.
>>> 
>>> And well done to the group as a whole. I wonder if ICANN realizes how lucky 
>>> it is to be able to call on nearly 70 volunteers to give so much of their 
>>> time, expertise, intelligence and effort into trying to find solutions on 
>>> topics like this one. I certainly hope the Board does. And I know that the 
>>> GNSO Council certainly does.
>>> 
>>> Now we can look forward to the group completing its final report in August! 
>>> (In my book, you can't just send a message full of praise like this one 
>>> without adding at least one little pressure point in there ;) ).
>>>  
>>> Stéphane
>>> 
>>> Le 24 juil. 2010 à 03:06, Mike O'Connor a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: "ICANN News Alert" <communications@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Date: July 23, 2010 7:55:56 PM CDT
>>>>> To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Public Comment: Initial Report on Vertical 
>>>>> Integration Between Registrars and Registries
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> News Alert
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-23jul10-en.htm
>>>>> 
>>>>> Public Comment: Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars 
>>>>> and Registries
>>>>> 23 July 2010
>>>>> The GNSO Vertical Integration Working Group is seeking comments on its 
>>>>> Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries. 
>>>>> This Initial Report [PDF, 731 KB] is posted for public comment as a 
>>>>> required step in the GNSO’s Policy Development Process on Vertical 
>>>>> Integration between Registrars and Registries. The Initial Report 
>>>>> describes various proposed solutions for restrictions on vertical 
>>>>> integration between registrars and registries for adoption in the New 
>>>>> gTLD Program.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please note: The Working Group is working under an extremely aggressive 
>>>>> schedule in order to meet the requirements that have been placed on it by 
>>>>> the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. The Working Group is planning to 
>>>>> continue its analysis throughout the public comment period. Reviewers are 
>>>>> encouraged to submit comments early to provide the group as much time as 
>>>>> possible to consider them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The public comment period ends on 12 August 2010.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Background:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The GNSO Council has commenced a policy development process (PDP) on the 
>>>>> topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries. The GNSO 
>>>>> Council formed a working group to evaluate whether any policy 
>>>>> recommendations should be developed on the topic of vertical integration 
>>>>> between registrars and registries affecting both new gTLDs and existing 
>>>>> gTLDs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ICANN is currently in the process of finalizing the implementation 
>>>>> details for the launch of new gTLDs. ICANN has posted four draft 
>>>>> applicant guidebooks and a series of topic papers for public comment 
>>>>> describing the manner in which ICANN proposes to implement this program. 
>>>>> These documents include proposals on the topic of vertical integration 
>>>>> and whether cross-ownership restrictions or other rules related to 
>>>>> vertical integration should be adopted to apply to the New gTLD Program.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Initial Report describes several proposals regarding vertical 
>>>>> integration that have been developed and analyzed by the VI Working 
>>>>> Group. No proposal has achieved consensus support within the VI Working 
>>>>> Group. These proposals are included for the purpose of seeking public 
>>>>> comment and will be subject to further analysis and debate as the VI 
>>>>> Working Group continues to strive to develop a consensus position to 
>>>>> recommend to the GNSO Council on an expedited basis.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Initial Report published for public comment is a “snapshot” of a 
>>>>> living document that will be revised several times during the public 
>>>>> comment period. Reviewers are encouraged to check on the working-group 
>>>>> wiki for the latest version of this Initial Report.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This public comment forum is an opportunity to comment on any of the 
>>>>> proposed vertical integration models that are described the Initial 
>>>>> Report. The Initial Report will be posted for a public comment period 
>>>>> that closes on 12 August 2010. Comments can be sent to 
>>>>> vi-pdp-initial-report@xxxxxxxxx and reviewed 
>>>>> athttp://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Additional Information:
>>>>> 
>>>>> To review the Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries 
>>>>> and Registrars, please refer to 
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf 
>>>>> [PDF, 254 KB].
>>>>> 
>>>>> The ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration is posted at 
>>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5.
>>>>> 
>>>>> To review the charter describing the policy work undertaken by the 
>>>>> Vertical Integration Working Group, please refer to: 
>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-chartered-objectives-10mar10-en.pdf
>>>>>  [PDF, 41 KB].
>>>>> 
>>>>> For information on the details of the implementation planning activities 
>>>>> for new gTLDs, please refer to the documents posted 
>>>>> athttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm
>>>>> 
>>>>> To review updates to the Initial Report that may be developed by the VI 
>>>>> Working Group during the public comment period, please refer to the 
>>>>> archive of Initial Report snapshots posted at 
>>>>> https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?initial_report_snapshots.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Staff responsible: Margie Milam
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> This message was sent from ICANN News Alert to mike@xxxxxxxxxx. It was 
>>>>> sent from: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 
>>>>> 90292-6601. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.   
>>>>>     
>>>>> Email Marketing by
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Manage your subscription  
>>>>> 
>>>> 

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