RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Summary and Revised Initial Report

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am not going to comment on the correct process since like Roberto, I am not a 
process expert, but do agree with him.  No matter what, we need to get this 
Interim Report and any other updates into the Board's hands prior to their 
retreat. I am not sure if this is done via GNSO or some other voting 
methodology, but agree it needs to get there.

Jeff Eckhaus

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:33 PM
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Summary and Revised Initial Report

With the caveat that I am not a process guy, may I provide my 2c.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no formal request from the Board to have 
an interim report from this WG (and even if they would ask, shouldn't they go 
through the GNSO rather than asking directly?).
We are chartered by the Name Council, so we should not communicate directly, 
including sending reports, to the Board without going through the GNSO.
With the caveat above, I think that the proper way to do this is via a 
resolution. After all, we are not just a group of friends getting together in 
their free time to chat at random about vertical integration, but a WG properly 
chartered by the GNSO Council. The amount of time we spent in the beginning of 
this working group to establish what was the proper charter (remember the 
discussion about article 5?) shows that we have cared since the beginning about 
proper relation with the Name Council.
Last but not least, from a practical point of view, if I were still on the 
Board I would love to hear about the results, even on an interim basis, that a 
WG could offer on a topic that will be part of the Board retreat agenda. 
However, since the WG is not a Board WG, I could not ask them officially for a 
report, so I would expect the report to come via the body that has chartered 
the WG, which is the GNSO Council.
So, IMHO, either we transmit the interim report to the GNSO Council (our 
supervisor), who then has the full right to do whatever they want with it, 
including sending it to the Board with or without resolution, as they see fit, 
or we decide that we do not want to transmit the interim report to the GNSO 
Council.
It seems to me that, in the latter case, we are implicitely admitting that our 
work has been irrelevant and that we have lost our time for nothing.
But again, as I said before, I am not a process guy and would be happy to stand 
corrected by people who have a better knowledge of the processes.
Cheers,
Roberto



________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, 17 August 2010 21:33
To: 'Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx'; 'gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Summary and Revised Initial Report
If there was no request by the Board for the report, why does the Council need 
for formally pass a resolution to forward the report to the Board? Why can't 
the staff forward it to the board as a status report after it is publicly 
posted.

This is such an ad hoc irregular process and makes no sense to me from a pdp 
standpoint. Just publish the revised report and send it to the Board mailing 
list. Remove the council completely.

The only reason I could think to have a council resolution is to try to give 
this report more weight in the pdp process which to me seems like the one thing 
we should avoid.

Can someone explain to me the rationale?
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>

________________________________
From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx' <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue Aug 17 12:05:16 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Summary and Revised Initial Report
Jeff-
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall a board request on this topic.  
This process is driven by the GNSO Council's initiation of a PDP, and is not 
like the STI specific work that was requested by the Board.    I understand the 
desire of the GNSO Council to inform the Board prior to its retreat in 
September, but I didn't think there was a specific request to do so.

Margie

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:54 AM
To: Margie Milam; 'gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Summary and Revised Initial Report

Margie,

Why did you take out the part that this was a result of a board request? Was 
this not requested by the Board? When one looks back at this process, I want it 
clear that the only reason that an interim report is being sent by the council 
to the board is because of their request.

Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue Aug 17 11:30:16 2010
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Summary and Revised Initial Report
Dear All,

Please find enclosed for your review the updated Summary of Public Comments 
that includes the comments from yesterday's call.   In preparing this document, 
 I reviewed the comments to DAG v.4  but realized that it would be a 
significant task to attempt to review and analyze all of the comments in a 
short amount of time.   Instead, I included a reference to the DAG v. 4 
comments in the body of the summary.

Also, please review the attached Revised Initial Report that is redlined to 
reflect the changes from the Initial Report.    I did not include  the annexes, 
due to the size of the document.   The annexes will not change except to add 
the Summary of Public Comment as Annex L to the Revised Initial Report.

Finally, with regard to the comments on the motion received from Jeff Neuman, I 
suggest that the motion be updated as follows:

Motion to Forward the Revised Initial Report on the Vertical Integration PDP to 
the ICANN Board.

Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development 
process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and 
registrars;


Whereas the VI Working Group has produced its Revised Initial Report and has 
presented it to the GNSO Council on 18 August; and,



Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes that the Revised Initial Report does not 
include any recommendations that have achieved a consensus within the VI 
Working Group, and instead reflects the current state of the work of the VI 
Working Group;


Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Revised Initial Report, and desires 
to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board;


NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:


RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort 
shown by each member of the VI PDP working group in developing the Revised 
Initial Report on an expedited basis;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby agrees to forward the Revised Initial 
Report to the ICANN Board as a snapshot of the current state of the ongoing 
deliberations of the VI Working Group with the understanding that the VI 
Working Group will continue to work through these issues to attempt to produce 
consensus recommendations in a final report.


RESOLVED FURTHER, that this resolution is not an endorsement or approval by the 
GNSO Council of the contents of the Revised Initial Report at this time;


RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to make the appropriate 
notifications to the ICANN Secretary and to the community.



As indicated by Mikey,  we will publish the Revised Initial Report tomorrow, so 
please provide any comments to the attached documents by COB today.

Best Regards,

Margie

_____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
_____________

________________________________
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.