Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Closure?
After a read of Ron's email, I support dissolving this group. Initially I wanted to hold on to a point Berry Cobb made in an earlier call that we might not have any additional opportunity for input on the topic of VI/VS (et al acronyms that stemmed from our work) before the application guidebook gets finalized. That would mean perhaps at least putting the group into a hibernation state pending the board decision on a path with VI. -Jothan Jothan Frakes http://blog.jothan.com/ my blog New TLD Conference in San Francisco February 9-10-11, 2011: http://dot-nxt.com ============= On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > 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. >