Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Closure?

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ron +1

Antony
On Oct 18, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>