Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Closure?
In fact on the issue of vertical integration or vertical separation is completely relative and the realities are not the same from one continent to another. Robert indeed, it requires a lot of consultation at local level. Something that is not easy especially since it is a very important issue, the busness. Écouter Lire phonétiquement As I said above, the realities are not the same from one continent to another as the problem is not identical from one community to another. Écouter Lire phonétiquement Whatever the approach to choose should take into account the environment first. Certainly, one can rely on the Council's decision but I think, in my opinion, we need to rethink the debate differently. Écouter Lire phonétiquement SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914 email: b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2010/10/18 Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> > I am writing these notes while on the call that marked the record low > attendance. > I am more and more convinced that people have lost interest, as there is > the diffuse impression that we cannot go much further than we are, as we > cannot achieve further consensus. > > At the same time, this past weekend I went again through the material we > have, including the comments received. > All considered, I have the impression that if we had to summarize in a > bullet point list the discussion we had in these months, it would be > something close to this: > > - Compliance is key - whatever the rules established for the new TLDs, > we need a mechanism to enforce them; > - There is no consensus, either on vertical integration or vertical > separation; > - We have identified a list of harms that suggest that either complete > separation or complete integration will create problems; > - If we keep the status quo of vertical separation, there are some > cases where vertical separation will hinder the business more than helping > the market; > - While the WG has not identified exact examples (although some cases > like cultural TLDs or brand TLDs have been discussed), there is a general > feeling that some exceptions could be granted. > > Considering that the Board would love to be able to make a decision based > on community consensus, and considering that there is not a great chance > that the community would express a wider consensus that what listed above, > at least in the near future, this is the most we can do. > > As I said during the call, I propose to have a short communiqué along these > lines, and wrap Phase 1. I don't see many more "principles" on which we can > have consensus other than the bullet points above, but I might be wrong. I > understand that we have obligations, like for instance evaluate the > comments: what I am saying is that, having looked at the comments, I don't > see how they could change the nature of our consensus: they reflect the same > difference of opinions we had in the working group, so we can acknowledge > the comments, but the reality is that our potential consensus is just the > above bullet point list. > > As for future work, I would remit the mandate to the Council, who should > tell us if they want us to continue, recharter our effort, or whatever. In > other words, the question of Phase 1 vs. Phase 2 is a question that the > Council should decide. We can propose to continue or stop it here, but the > final decision has to be made by the Council. > > Comments? > R. >