Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Closure?

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.
>