<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items
- To: vertical integration wg <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:22:07 -0400
On 24 Sep 2010, at 10:09, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
> hi all,
>
> here are some topic-candidates for the call next Monday
>
> -- should we review/analyze/understand the list of harms
no
> or will that effort simply become a way for us to restate our deep divisions
> and is thus an exercise in futility?
indeed
>
> -- what hints can we glean from talking to our contacts on the Board
> regarding 1) the schedule for new gTLDs and 2) what they would like to see
> from us (homework assignment -- please talk to your contacts on the Board and
> see what you can learn)
won't that depend on waiting until after the meeting of the wise in Trondheim?
>
> -- have a conversation about the process that the "morality and public order"
> community working group used to get to their recommendations. i'm curious if
> there are lessons-learned that we could apply as we go forward (here's a link
> to their report
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/report-rec6-cwg-21sep10-en.pdf)
One lesson to be learned is what can be achieved when there is a genuine desire
to come to consensus and there is no protection of business interest going on.
>
> anything else on people's minds?
How do we close down this effort and make recommendation to the Council on next
steps?
I think that except for fiddling around the edges, this group has gotten as far
as it is going to get without people deciding they are ready to compromise on
the deep issues. The Board tried a forcing function, but many of us argued that
they did not really mean it. We should find out soon if they did really mean
it. I.e this weekend is the moment of truth for whether they meant it or not.
If the Board shows that they really meant zero tolerance for VI without us
making a concrete proposal, and therefore stick with their decision because we
did not have a consensus proposal, maybe we can find a way to work on this with
consensus as a real target. Otherwise I just do not see us making any progress.
a.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|