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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I have not issue with continuing for the longer term solution.  But only if 
there is realistic notion that someday, somehow we may achieve consensus on an 
approach.

The idea of a interminable succession of meetings like the one yesterday where 
we could not even agree on having meetings fill me with dread.  We would have 
to have a commitment from all of us to come back to the table with a sincere 
intention fo compromise.  And I just don't see that happening at this point.  I 
used to believe that the stakeholders in the GNSO could be brought to consensus 
eventually on most any subject.  This group has dashed that faith.

As for a simple yes or no poll.  We have seen with every poll, how after the 
poll, lots of people argued about what it meant and whether enough people had 
voted and whether we should tell anyone or not. We cannot even achieve 
consensus on the value of a poll.  So if there is a poll, I will vote in it.  
But I have no confidence that it will resolve anything.  It we do have a poll 
we better discuss the wording of the poll on the list first - though I am 
concerned we may not even be able to decide on wording on a poll.

Sometimes after a failure, it is best to give up for a while.  And try again 
someday in the future once we see what the Board actually decides and see how 
well whatever they works in the new gTLD process that may eventually commence.

a.

On 28 Sep 2010, at 13:19, Alan Greenberg 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.)
>