ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

  • To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:29:17 -0500

hi Alan,

i'm tempted....  <slaps himself in the face, twice>  no...  i won't do a 
poll....  :-)

we've had a number of comments on the list prior to the call yesterday that 
basically said that it's time to acknowledge the deep divisions within the 
group and wrap things up.  i may have committed an error by not making it clear 
on the call that when we talk about finishing a Final Report we're actually 
speaking in code and saying "end this phase of the work of the PDP WG."   but 
that's what we were doing.  

it's time to hand this back to the Council and the Board.  the Board will make 
the VI decision for this round of gTLDs and the Council can evaluate what (if 
any) work should be done on VI prior to the next round of gTLDs.  the frenzied 
task of trying to arrive at consensus on VI in time for *this* round of gTLDs 
is out of our hands now.  that's what we decided when we elected not to go into 
hyper-frenzy mode and try to find something by tomorrow.

the approach to handling the VI issue for the *next* round of gTLDs should go 
back to the Council for reevaluation -- this is the very largest working group 
ever, it consumes a stupendous amount of GNSO resources and attention, and 
circumstances have changed now that the GNSO VI Working Group out of the 
critical path to new gTLDs.  we've sketched that phase out in some of our 
informal documentation, but never got approval from the Council to do it.

it's appropriate for the Council, as the body responsible for managing the 
policy-development process, to reaffirm whether to continue working on VI now 
that the current-round decision is out of its hands.   they now have the chance 
to look at the situation and decide whether to redirect those resources to 
other more pressing issues.  if the Council comes back and says "yes, we want a 
WG to do a 'normal' PDP and spend a year or so figuring out what to do about VI 
in the next gTLD round" then so be it and i'll cheerfully be a part of that 
gang, but this is the right time to provide the Council with the opportunity to 
make that call.  

i'm off to test a new hydrofoil on the boat, so i may be sluggish in replying 
for a while.


On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:16 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> Mikey, a substantive decision seems to have been made, and I do not recall 
> any real discussion about it, other than a very cursory one on today's 
> teleconference.
> This group started as a formal PDP, admittedly with the caveat that the 
> process not delay the launch of new gTLDs.
> The Board motion that we have been discussing today ended with "At the time a 
> policy conclusion is reached by the GNSO, it can be included in the applicant 
> guidebook for future application rounds." That sounds like they were 
> expecting us to continue working towards consensus.
> If we are considering closing up shop and do not plan to look at the issue 
> further (thus giving the Board the responsibility of setting the VI terms for 
> the long-term and not just the short-term), then this should be the result of 
> formal action on the part of the WG (or the Council if they want to pull the 
> plug).
> Alan
> At 27/09/2010 04:31 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>> hi all,
>> here's a summary of the decision we arrived at on the call this afternoon.
>> -- we've decided to submit a notice to the Council (and thus indirectly to 
>> the Board, in response to their resolution) that the WG has not arrived at a 
>> consensus view as of now -- Roberto and i will draft it and get it off some 
>> time tomorrow
>> -- we'll aim for having a Final Report ready for the Council meeting on 18 
>> November, and the primary task in that effort will be to incorporate public 
>> comments into the Interim document.
>> that concludes my report.  :-)
>> mikey
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> phone   651-647-6109
>> fax             866-280-2356
>> web     http://www.haven2.com
>> handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
>> etc.)

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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy