Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] More on closure

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto,

it comes down to the fact that we sent something to the Board and it's fairly 
meaningless to continue until and unless we have some actionable feedback from 
them.  The arguments have been rehearsed to death.  Talking among ourselves is 
unlikely to produce new directions or agreements. We need some decisions.  
Someone has to provide parameters and direction.  

There are plenty of us with an interest in the area who aren't participating 
because it's fairly clear that not much progress will be made until we get 
something back from the Powers That Be.   Once that happens we'll be back.   I 
speak for myself, but I'd be surprised if I'm not describing how others feel as 
well. 

Antony


On Oct 25, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Folks, 
> There have been several replies to my post last Monday that I would like to 
> address. 
> About participation. There is nothing wrong in being busy and not having the 
> chance to attend all calls. I have skipped once myself.
> 
> However, what I was noticing was not an occasional absence, but a trend. And 
> since we are at that, let's say that the trend is not only lower attendance 
> to calls, but also far lower email contribution.
> 
> There is ample evidence that this WG is far less active than before. Also, 
> can you name any progress made in the last couple of months? And compare it 
> to progress made previously.
> 
> So there are two points that we need to consider.
> 
> First, do we consider this phase, the one where we have produced an interim 
> report soliciting public comments, closed? Is it closed meaningfully without 
> an analysis of the comments received (this is orthogonal to the fact that 
> most of the comments are form members of the group, they are on record and 
> deserve a follow up). You know my personal answer, which is "No, until we 
> have not acknowledged receipt of these comments, and produced a final 
> statement", where "final" does not mean "the very last", but "the one ending 
> this phase". If the word final is not deemed appropriate, we can find another 
> one, but the fact is that we can't let our interim report to remain hanging, 
> without acknowledgement of the comments. Even a "We have read the comments, 
> and have nothing to add to our previous statements" would be better than 
> nothing. Much too often we (the internet community) complain about having 
> sent comments to the Board and having heard nothing about a follow up. Why 
> are we doing the same now?
> 
> The other point is the continuation of the WG, and the next phases. I am not 
> very much interested in the formal aspects, who has to open a new phase, is 
> it us or the council or the board? I am, as a first priority, interested in 
> whether this WG wants to commit to go forward with a next phase. Who has the 
> authority or the duty to declare a second phase open is completely irrelevant 
> if this WG has no intention to commit to further work. We can debate on what 
> are the formal acts to open the new phase, and even on whether any formal act 
> is needed, but the main and foremost question is whether this WG is still 
> alive or not. And I am not convinced that the answer to this latter question 
> is "yes". This is something that I would like to learn today, during the call 
> and in the email threads surrounding it.
> 
> As an addendum to this second question, I would like to say that my 
> understanding was that we were doing some intense but short term effort to 
> provide initial indications to council and board about the opportunity, 
> benefits and risks of vertical integration. The development of a full blown 
> new TLD policy being a different thing, to be addressed later, also with the 
> experience of this first (?!?) new round. I might have been wrong, and the 
> formal charter of this WG could well imply that we must continue to produce 
> new results. However, also for this matter the doubts arises on whether this 
> organization that we have given ourselves, with a fast reacting team, some 
> unorthodox approaches, killing deadlines, intense effort, is the way to go 
> for a long term PDP. But, again, this is a secondary question, the main one 
> remaining the issue on whether we do want to commit to continue or whether 
> there is no motivation to provide the level of effort we have given in the 
> past.
> 
> I like sport analogies. Are we more like Red Bull, failing to close the run 
> forf the championship in the race where we had the chance to do it, or like 
> Ferrari, that after a slow period, is chaining up victories and taking the 
> lead to win the championship?
> 
> Looking forward to answers tonight.
> 
> Cheers, 
> Roberto 
> (from windy Trieste, where the "bora" has started blowing heavily and 
> expected to be even stronger in the next hours)
>