Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Closure?

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

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.
>