Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
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.
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 orwrong 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 toinitiate a new PDP (starting with an Issues Report) in order to go back towork.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 nopoll on whether to continue or not, might be a reasonable thing to do(decidingahead 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'tdo a poll.... :-)we've had a number of comments on the list prior to the callyesterday 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 ofthePDP WG." but that's what we were doing.it's time to hand this back to the Council and the Board. theBoardwill 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 whenweelected 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 gTLDsshould 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 formanaging the policy-development process, to reaffirm whether to continueworkingon 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 backandsays "yes, we want a WG to do a 'normal' PDP and spend a year or sofiguringout 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 sluggishinreplying 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 donot 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 caveatthat the process not delay the launch of new gTLDs.The Board motion that we have been discussing today ended with"Atthe 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 atthe 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 thisafternoon.-- we've decided to submit a notice to the Council (and thusindirectly 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 Councilmeeting 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.