RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Closure?

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ron +1 

Tim
 
> =============
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Ron Andruff  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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>