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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As many of you know, I have long held the view that failure to reach
consensus is not a failure.  It likely means that there may not be
consensus and that is very useful information and an indication that
market forces should be allowed to work.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Cute
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 8:06 AM
> To: 'Avri Doria'; 'vertical integration wg'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
> 
> 
> Avri,
> 
> The only point I would take up is I don't view this WG as a "failure."
> It
> was given extremely limited time to address an extremely complex issue
> without requisite expertise and resources.  Yes the constellation of
> interests around the table did not lend to quick and easy consensus.
> But
> this WG coming to this result given the factors I cited should not be
> viewed
> as a failure.
> 
> Cheers,
> Brian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 7:45 AM
> To: vertical integration wg
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
> 
> 
> 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.)
> >
> 
>