Re: Astoundingly off-topic [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff, 

Consider for a moment that the timelines of the Working Group have not been 
unrealistic at all.  The PDP's charter includes a provision to not delay the 
launch of new gTLDs, and in order to fulfill that, we had to move 
expeditiously.  From where I sit, progress has been agonizingly slow, due in 
part to punctilious observance of the rules. 

As it turned out, a lot of sound and fury brought us to where it was clear to 
many that we would end up -- with different camps with different ideas, needing 
someone else (someone higher) to cut the knot and make a decision.  It is 
risible to suggest that if we had had more time we would have reached a 
different place.  In fact we could have arrived here in a much shorter time. 

I do not see any disrespect for PDP processes, merely a desire to actually 
respect the timelines that PDP processes are *supposed* to take, instead of 
taking the usual route of jettisoning the written, agreed-to-by-the-GNSO 
timelines in favor of the "own sweet time" deadlines PDPs have customarily 
operated under.   And to respect the "don't delay new gTLDs" that the WG 
actually agreed to, when it is unable to agree on much else at all. 

I would take this group's effort, despite the fact that the result was not as 
some might have hoped for, as a *positive* case study in how to react quickly 
to an urgent issue while staying within the ICANN structure (as opposed, say, 
to the IRT). 

If anyone at ICANN thinks that we should be unable to get anything done in less 
than six months (which is about what we had), then they have profoundly 
misunderstood the nature and speed of the Internet.  To believe that long 
timelines are "normal" is to condemn ICANN to irrelevance.  There needs to be 
more of this rapid policy development, not less. 

Antony




On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:30 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Roberto,
>  
> This can put an end to the discussion of this motion, but it will not put an 
> end to the discussion of the PDP process and how a number of things this 
> working group has been forced to do from the beginning have been on ad hoc 
> basis to appease the Board’s unrealistic timelines and demands.  A number of 
> the demands by the Board (or by those wanting to appease the Board)  have not 
> respected the PDP process and we are all jumping through hoops throwing out a 
> number of the principals that the group you chaired espoused in its final 
> report on how the PDP process should operate.
>  
> So, yes I will agree on this group not to bring up these issues again, but 
> this group’s activities has presented an interesting case study for the 
> PDP-WT to examine.
>  
> So as the chair of that group, I thank everyone for giving us good material 
> to discuss.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete 
> the original message.
>  
>  
> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:16 PM
> To: 'Mike O'Connor'; Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Astoundingly off-topic [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the 
> Council
>  
> Jeff,
> It should also not go unnoticed that ICANN staff is unwilling into put into 
> the motion that the ICANN Board requested this input for their retreat.  It 
> is clear to most in the VI Group that this information was requested 
> (although NOT in a board motion).  That was consistently the message from the 
> Chairs of this group and I know from personal conversations with some Board 
> members that this is the case as well.
> Actually, I never said that "the ICANN Board requested this input for their 
> retreat". I only said that, from personal contacts, I understand that they 
> would find useful to have it.
> I am not aware of any formal request from their part. Therefore the fact that 
> this statement has not been included in the motion does not depend from 
> staff's own willingness, but from a specific position of at least one of the 
> co-chairs.
> I sincerely hope that this could put an end to the discussion on the motion.
> Thanks,
> Roberto
>