Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] the way forward - results from the call today.

["Mike O'Connor" <oconnorstp@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

Jon's got it. The second sentence doesn't pertain to the Board motion.  So I
think thiings can proceed without excitement.

Well, maybe with excitement.  But without additional memos to the Board.
:-)

Mikey

-----------   (sent from droid)
phone -- 651 647 1009
fax       -- 866 280 2356
web     -- www.haven2.com
 On Oct 12, 2010 7:15 AM, "Jon Nevett" <jon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Stephane:
>
> As Mikey stated below, the so-called "errors" were only in the second
sentence of his correspondence -- how we are moving forward as a group. They
do not relate to and in no way impact the substance of the GNSO resolution
or letter to the Board about the lack of consensus to date. The Council has
not taken any action based on the second sentence, so there is no need for
another fire drill here. If the WG believes that the correspondence to the
Council should be clarified, that could be done in due course.
>
> I copy the GNSO resolution and letter for everyone's reference. As you can
see, they don't touch on the issues in the second sentence related to future
work.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jon
>
>
>> Motion to Respond to the ICANN Board on Vertical Integration.
>>
>> Made by: Chuck Gomes
>> Seconded by: Adrian Kinderis
>>
>> Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy
development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between
registries and registrars;
>>
>> Whereas, in Section 2.11 (Vertical Integration) of the 25 September 2010
Adopted Board Resolutions (
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm)the ICANN Board
inquired whether the GNSO has achieved a consensus position on the topic of
vertical integration with regard to New gTLDs;
>>
>> Whereas the VI Working Group discussed many different issues, reviewed
many different models and produced its Revised Initial Report, the VI
Working Group has not yet produced recommendations that are supported by the
consensus of its members;
>>
>> Whereas, on 29 September 2010, the GNSO Council Chair received notice
from the VI PDP WG stating “to date the Working Group has not reached a
consensus view on vertical integration”;
>>
>> Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to respond to the Board’s inquiry;
>>
>> NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
>>
>> RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council acknowledges that the VI Working Group is
unable to achieve a consensus by the Board requested date of 8 October 2010;
>>
>> RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the draft
response copied below to the ICANN Board and directs Staff to forward the
response to the ICANN Secretary.
>>
>> Letter
>>
>> October 7, 2010
>> To:
>>
>> Mr. Peter Dengate-Thrush
>> Chair - ICANN Board
>>
>> Re: Vertical Integration Recommendations for the New gTLD Program
>>
>> Dear Peter,
>>
>> This is in response to Section 2.11 (Vertical Integration) of the 25
September 2010 Adopted Board Resolutions (
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm) in which the
ICANN Board inquired whether the GNSO has achieved a consensus position on
the topic of vertical integration with regard to New gTLDs.
>>
>> Please be advised that the GNSO Council was notified by the Vertical
Integration PDP Working Group (VI WG) that it was unable to reach a
consensus position on the issue of vertical integration. Although the WG has
been diligently evaluating this issue for several months, it is unable to
deliver recommendations that are supported by a consensus of its members by
the ICANN Board’s deadline of 8 October 2010.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2010, at 4:48 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>
>> Hi Mikey,
>>
>> Thanks for this summary of the call. As always, you make it easy to
follow the group's work and that really is appreciated.
>>
>> I am somewhat worried by the second part of your comments and the fact
that what you communicated to Council was in fact "riddled with errors". As
you know, Council has since sent your response to the Board. If that
response is inadequate, and the one you meant to send is in fact very
different, I would urge the group to provide the Council with a new one asap
and to let me know when a edited response might be forthcoming so that I may
inform the Council of this.
>>
>> As the Board deadline has now passed, it is unlikely that any new
response would be taken into account by them but I think it would certainly
be helpful for the Council to know what it is the VI WG really meant to send
us.
>>
>> I am copying Chuck because I'm sure he may want to comment on this as
well. As Council liaison, I also plan to update the Council but I will wait
for you to respond before doing so.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stéphane
>>
>> Le 11 oct. 2010 à 20:30, Mike O'Connor a écrit :
>>
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> i'm going to push this out to the list a little bit half-baked, because
i'm about to jump on a plane and don't want to hold up the conversation
while i do all that transit stuff.
>>>
>>> regarding the comments
>>>
>>> -- my idea of just pushing the comments to the Board, and saving them
for our Phase II work (as outlined in the call for agenda items), was not
the right approach.
>>>
>>> -- we concluded that there is substantive work to do on the comments.
essentially, it's the work that we got ready to try to do after the Board
resolution came down, but then gave up on when we realized we only had 3
days to do it. namely, we need to look hard at the Principles section of the
document in light of the comments and see if we can move closer to (or
achieve) consensus on some points.
>>>
>>> -- it would be especially useful to the Board if we could do that pretty
quickly (so i'm really interested in how we get that done -- the idea of
splitting into the sub-groups that developed the detailed language in our
Annexes appeals to me, but i'm open to other ideas).
>>>
>>> regarding the Final Report
>>>
>>> -- it's agreed that my second sentence to the Council in response to the
Board resolution was riddled with errors. here's what i wrote: "We plan to
incorporate public comments into the Interim Report and provide the Council
with a Final Report in advance of the Council's 18 November meeting."
>>>
>>> -- the first problem is that it allows somebody to conclude that this is
the Final Report for the working group (and thus the WG is wrapping up) when
in fact this is the Final Report for **Phase I** of the working group. so
that needs to be cleared up. the WG is **only now** starting the work we
were chartered to do -- we crammed Phase I into our schedule in response to
the Board resolution at Nairobi and we need to transition back to the
charter we were given, not the one we invented.
>>>
>>> -- the second problem is that date -- now that we're going to do some
substantive work, i want to unwind that arbitrary date commitment. we'll get
the revisions to the Council once we've completed our work.
>>>
>>> regarding Phase II of our work
>>>
>>> -- we agreed that the actual Board decision with regard to VI for this
round will influence the scope and approach of the work we do during Phase
II. so it probably makes sense to wait a bit before jumping into that
effort. how long to wait, and what the trigger is to "restart" the work is
still subject to debate.
>>>
>>> -- my inclination at this moment is to wait on this question and focus
on working the public comments into our current report.
>>>
>>>
>>> thoughts?
>>>
>>> mikey
>>>
>>>
>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>> phone 651-647-6109
>>> fax 866-280-2356
>>> web http://www.haven2.com
>>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)
>>>
>>
>