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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Makes sense.

Thanks to both of you for your answers.

Stéphane

Le 24 juil. 2010 à 16:16, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

> Stéphane,
>  
> A Final Report would be great but it can’t be done if the group hasn’t 
> reached consensus on recommendations.  By its very nature, the Final Report 
> assumes that the WG is finished, i.e., they have done as much as they can do 
> and they have either decided to make some recommendations or they have 
> decided that it is not possible to reach consensus on any recommendations.  
> That does not seem to be the case here so my understanding is that the WG 
> will continue its work.  In the meantime, the Board needs input for its 
> retreat, so my suggestion is to send them a Revised Initial Report that 
> includes any changes to the Initial Report based on public comments and 
> continuing work of the WG during the comment period.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 9:20 AM
> To: Mike O'Connor
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Public Comment: Initial 
> Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries
>  
> 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
> 
> 
> <~WRD000.jpg>
> 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
> <image001.jpg>
>  
> <image002.jpg> Manage your subscription  
> <image003.jpg>
>