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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

As the Chair of the PDP-WT, I would really appreciate these being captured and 
submitted to the PDP-WT.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 8:32 AM
To: Roberto Gaetano
Cc: 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration


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.  

mikey


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.)