ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
  • From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:15:36 +0200

It is not a matter of terms, but a matter of facts.
The fact is that the purpose of this WG was to look for a consensus
proposal, not to get together one or two times per week in teleconference
and exchange tons of emails just because we like eachother and like to
exchange opinions (and sometimes to do polls).
I don't care if we call it "failure" or other, this is something that is
behind us. The most important thing is to look forward, and to see whether
there is still something on our plate now that the Board has called time
To me, there are still a few items on our agenda, which are:


        update the interim report with the feedback from the public comments
and present it to the Council

        decide if this report is the "final" one for the WG, or whether we
propose to the Council that we continue working

        decide whether the work done so far on harms is worthed going
forward, or formalized as is (i.e. the list of harms transmitted as part of
the updated report), or abandoned

And I believe that there is another thing we should do, which I consider of
the upmost importance: whether the WG is disbanded or not, we need to
reflect on why we did not reach consensus.
When I presented my candidature for co-chair, I thought that we could get to
some more tangible result. This has not been the case, for a number of
reasons. However, we have tried, and I believe we have done something. I,
for example, am now more aware of the issues and positions of the different
groups and constituencies, and what are the elements that are more or less
likely to be compromised upon. And have also some ideas on what we did
better and what we did less well. I am sure that we all have similar ideas
(although I bet we do not have consensus on what were the good or bad
things). This is important knowledge that we need to make sure not to lose.
It is important, now that memories are still fresh, to evaluate what we or
another WG could do better. At one point in time Mikey has asked the
question on what was done by another WG to get consensus: this "using the
lessons learned by others" is a fundamental tool to progress. So, I think
that we should also come to some written statement for the benefit of the
future WGs.


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Wednesday, 29 September 2010 16:55
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

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,




Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy