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

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

I agree with your view Avri but I don't think most people view it that
way and the fact remains that the word 'failure' has very negative
implications for most people.  In fact, I have found that some in the
ICANN community conclude that failure to reach consensus means the GNSO
is broken.  You and I both know that is an incorrect conclusion, but I
fear that we are the exceptions rather than the rule.  

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:58 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I see "'failure', but rather 'consensus was not found'" as two ways to
> say the same thing.
> 
> I see failure as ok.  Failure is not a bad word we have to shy away
> from, but rather an opportunity we need to learn from.  I don't think
> avoiding the word helps in the learning process.  We set out to find
> consensus and falied to find it.  And I go further I do not think we
> can in this current constellation.
> 
> But with a break, with new realities on the ground, etc...  a reformed
> group may be able to find consensus.    I also recommend that we do a
> post-moretm on this group after the final report is submitted and
> determine why we failed.  What we did right, what we did wrong and
what
> should be done differently in the future.  As I understand it, this is
> part of the required follow through on any WG.
> 
> Hence my support of the proposed response put forward by our
co-chairs.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 29 Sep 2010, at 10:55, Ron Andruff wrote:
> 
> > I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck and Brian that the issue here is
> not of 'failure', but rather 'consensus was not found'.  It is
> disappointing that despite our best efforts we end up here, but the
> work has been done seriously, diligently and respectfully, so I do not
> see any failure in that.  What matters now is that we discharge our
> duties as a WG consistent with our Charter.  What happens after that
is
> out of our hands. To not do what is expected of us because of a view
> that others are not doing what is not expected of them is not the way
> the social contract works.
> >
> > Clearly, as seen on the list, closure has not taken place yet and
> still needs to be addressed, in my view.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > RA
> >
> > Ronald N. Andruff
> > RNA Partners, Inc.
> >
> >
>