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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,
I hear you, but I am really wondering whether it is up to the WG to decide
whether the Council needs a resolution or not, or rather to the Council
itself to have this discussion.
We pass the report to the Council, and then they decide what to do with it,
while we concentrate on doing more work.
Fair enough?
Roberto
 


  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, 18 August 2010 02:33
To: 'eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'roberto@xxxxxxxxx';
'gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Summary and Revised Initial Report


You want to get it into their hands. Staff can send it to the Board's
mailing list. No one is arguing the Board should not see it. The question is
about whether the Council needs a resolution, which they do not and passing
one sets the bad precedent of formally forwarding incomplete products to the
board while a pdp is still underway. I know everyone wants to see new gTLDs
go forward and avoid delay, as do I, but we need to think beyond that so
that once many of you are registries, this doesn't come back to bite you
(and all of us).

Mikey - if you can make sure that our comments (including the ones from Tim
and I) make it to the Council.

I will also be discussing this with the registry reps on the Council.

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: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
<gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Tue Aug 17 19:07:37 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Summary and Revised Initial Report 



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 

 


  _____  


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

_____________


  _____  

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.