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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey, I was not really commenting on whether this was the right or 
wrong thing to do, but rather the process by which the decision was reached.
For the record, if we issue a final report, Council would need to 
initiate a new PDP (starting with an Issues Report) in order to go 
back to work. Again, not commenting on whether this would be a good 
or bad path, but rather that we make the decision understanding the impact.
And this is indeed a case where (in my opinion) and simple yes no 
poll on whether to continue or not, might be a reasonable thing to do 
(deciding ahead of time how we judge the outcome).
Alan

At 28/09/2010 10:29 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> 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.
> mikey
>
>
> 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.)