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

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

hi all,

let me chime in behind Roberto.

here's where i think we're at.  we'll release the Interim Report to the Council 
tomorrow.  we've also been asked to review proposed language for a motion for 
the Council and we've done that.  from this point on, it's up to the Council to 
take action.  

meanwhile, let's keep working on all the stuff that's on our plate (the harms 
list, the results of the public comments, finishing off our "principles" etc.)

thanks,

mikey


On Aug 17, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 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 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>  
> 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
> _____________

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