RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Closure?

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.