ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "'vertical integration wg'" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
  • From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:42:46 -0400

Does it really matter what the results of any poll are?

The MOPO group reached consensus on a number of points, and the Board just
ignored them.

Just being a realist here but just like the Board pulled a resolution out of
the air in Nairobi the odds are likely that they are going to do something
similar at the next Board meeting.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 9:20 PM
To: Alan Greenberg
Cc: Mike O'Connor; vertical integration wg
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

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>

> 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
>> 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
>> >>
>> >> -- 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,

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy