RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Closure?
I support your thinking, Roberto; it is time to send this WG back to Council to determine the way forward (re-charter or re-mandate). I also think you nailed it with your list of bullets. These are the issues in a tight summary. With regard to our commenting on the public comments I would note that the larger percentage of comments came from VI WG members, so, indeed, they do not change the nature of consensus in this case. If we must respond to them, we should note that the VI WG appreciates the public taking time to comment, has reviewed all of the comments and has taken them into account in coming to its conclusions. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 2:04 PM To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Closure? 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.