Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Closure?

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >     * 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.
I still find this position curiously close to being in denial of the 
fact that all abuse feared from VI is also likely to occur with VS. If 
vertical seperation leads to less enforcement of compliance, then 
suggesting it is in fact a call to open the floodgates for abuse.
> >       vertical separation;
>     * There is no consensus, either on vertical integration or
>
>
> 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.
I must agree with Eric here: We do have (limited) consensus on some 
(very) minor points.
> >     * We have identified a list of harms that suggest that either
> >       complete separation or complete integration will create problems;
The list of harms is as of yet just that: A list compiled in a 
brainstorming. We have not talked about this list, discussed the 
premises of each harm, or its implications. The list as it stands, is 
therefore worthless unless it is taken as a basis for further discussions.
> >     * 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.
Actually, I found the GAC position to be remarkably close to JN2. While 
setting a limit on VI in general, it opens the doors for certain 
exceptions from this limitations for cultural TLDs, SRSUs and others.
While we as a group may all agree that there may be exceptions possible, 
there is wide disagreement as to what these exceptions should be to, 
i.e. what the baseline should be. My definition of possible exeption is 
different from Erics.
Just as an example: While there may or may not be certain potential 
harms in VI in general that may or may not suggest that even the 
technical service for a new TLD should not be done by a registrar, does 
this still apply in cases where there is only one (or a restricted 
number of) registrant(s), such as in the SRSU scenario? I think not.
> > 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.
Once again, I agree with Eric. Our duty is to our mandate.
> 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.
+1

Best regards,

Volker Greimann