ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
  • From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:27:29 +0200

One lesson that I have never learned is to read *all* the messages when
catching up with email before starting answering.
You made a point on post-mortem that is more precise (and less verbose) than
mine, I should have simply agreed to your message below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 September 2010 17:58
> 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.
> >  
> >  

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy