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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey, Jon,

I agree with your assessment of the communication from the Council to the 
Board. However, I was reacting to your assertion that what you sent to the 
Council was in error.

Please remember that your group is tasked with replying to the Council, not the 
Board. If what you have sent us is wrong, then it needs to be put right and we 
need to know about it.

After that, what we decide to communicate to the Board is our decision. In this 
instance, I do agree with your view that the resolution the Council passed at 
its last meeting does not require change.

Hope this helps make my concerns clearer.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 12 oct. 2010 à 14:00, Mike O'Connor a écrit :

> 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.)
> >>> 
> >> 
> >