RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Closure?
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. > > > > > > > > > > >