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: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:19:49 -0700

I agree with Alan.   It's poll time


Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 28, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.)

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy