Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Closure?

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I will be repeating some of the comments I made on the previous call 
on this very issue.
On 10/18/10 2:03 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> I am writing these notes while on the call that marked the record low
> attendance.

So what? The VI call would have been my 4th ICANN concall hour today, 
and I spent 3 hours today off-call on ICANN business. Calls are not 
steady state things since there are occasions when non-recurring calls 
cluster in a time period and conflict with the recurring call(s).

> 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.

It is a given that involvement will change over time as some 
volunteers volunteered specifically to advance near term agendas. This 
is in addition to those volunteers who didn't understand what they 
were getting into, and haven't been heard from since the WG formed, or 
Spring Solstice.
Loss of participants is normal, chairs and liaisons included.


> 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;

For some. Recall, there is no need for extended compliance where there 
is structural separation.

>     * There is no consensus, either on vertical integration or
>       vertical separation;

I have the impression I write in invisible ink. We have consensus that 
any proposal to allow the IPC alone to run SRSU is junk. We have 
consensus that any proposal to let some, but not all contracted 
parties, to run to the bank is junk. That's actually more than I ever 
expected, and a starting point to discover if there are conditions for 
which all contracted parties could pursue registry contracts.

>     * 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.

The GAC has good language here, and the RACK+ and JN2 proposals 
contained equivalent language on the subject. Some of the SRSU 
interests and the free-market-or-nothing interests appear to object.

> 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.

True, but there is life after Trondheim, Cartagena and even San 
Francisco, and the Consensus Policy on the registry registrar service 
boundary, whether the registrar function may be executed by a 
registry, and the converse, is an important structural issue so long 
as there is a distinct contractual status for each function.

> 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.

That's fine for phase 1.


> 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.

No. We were not asked to just solve a first round how to manage greed 
and chaos question, given the choice of having a single 
one-size-fits-all application process, but to provide the general 
policy for the ongoing market.
If the Council wants to end a PDP, they know how.


> Comments?

I would greatly prefer that Mikey had not sent the unfortunate "we're 
done" message to the Council, the subject of the previous cleanup 
call, and I would also greatly prefer that Roberto not send another 
"we're done" message to the Council, necessitating another clean up 
call, or exceptionally ending a PDP through individual fatigue.
Eric