Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Closure?
Thanks Roberto I think the word 'may' is more accurate than 'will' in this sentence: > 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; I dont think we have the data to make the original assertion RT On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > 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. >