<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
- From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:46:52 +0200
The failure to reach consensus, may not be a failure to some, but
whatever the board will come up with will make it become a failure to
some. Effectively handing a decision we were tasked with making back to
the board for them to find an adequate solution feels like a failure of
ICANN decision making processes to me.
Volker
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.)
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede
Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|