ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:31:43 -0500

i'm with Roberto and Avri on this.  i've been reflecting on "lessons learned" 
for a while now and agree that we need to capture those soon.  especially since 
the PDP process is still being reviewed/refined in the Council.  


On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Avri,
> 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.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>> -----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.

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy