RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls review/comment within 24 hours

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff and Tim,

 

My posting of one week ago follows.  You will note that staff has advised on 
this matter and we are closing it out, as recommended.

 

Margie pointed out that the WG must send something to the Board after review of 
the public comments, i.e., the final report.  We need to nail down that final 
report this week, in my view, so that we establish a definitive VI WG line for 
the Board and GNSO Council before their next meetings.  Staff have intimated to 
the Council that the October 28th Board meeting will be decision-making time 
for the final AG, so the Board needs to get our input as soon as possible 
considering they will be meeting Thursday in one week (10-days from today).  
[Turns out that the Board and Council are meeting on the same day.]  We don't 
need full consensus on this, and I believe that the majority of WG would 
support a final report that included the details of Roberto's email of today.  
I checked with the GNSO Chair regarding the reporting chain and he is of the 
opinion that a singular message sent to PdT, KP and GNSO Chair is the way 
forward (i.e., we needn't get back into the issue of whether we send it to 
Council to forward to the Board, etc.  It can go direct).

 

The second issue - whether to dissolve this WG or hibernate it - is a 
non-issue.  IF we can get enough agreement from the WG to send our FINAL 
report, then, pursuant to Roberto's email, we go back to the Council to ask 
about re-chartering this same group or establishing a new issues report/PDP.

In either case, any one who wants to continue on a re-chartered WG or a 
newly-chartered WG to complete phase 2 work would be able to.  In short, I 
don't see what merit there is in 'hibernating' our WG.

 

Wrapping up our loose ends (responding to comments) this week will leave the 
Board a few days more to determine what they want to do.  Delaying the 
information we need to send on would only serve to shed a bad light on the 
current WG, IMHO.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:27 PM
To: Tim Ruiz; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls 
review/comment within 24 hours

 

I agree with Tim as well on this.  There is no protocol for us to be sending 
anything directly to the Board and that falls outside of the Policy Development 
Process (which we are still in the middle of).

 

Even assuming we were to send something to the Board, and I apologize for not 
being able to be on the call (don’t remove me from the list), I do not see the 
value of the specific bullet points.  If I were to interpret those bullet 
points (in my own way), this is how I would read them:

 

Bullet 1.  When we talked about compliance in our report, we really meant it.

Bullet 2.  There is still no consensus on any solution (even though we told you 
that a few weeks ago)

Bullet 3.  We have been doing some work over the past few weeks and we plan on 
doing more, but no consensus yet on any of it.

Bullet 4.  When we discussed that there may be a need for exceptions in our 
report that we sent to you, some of us meant that as well.

 

Not to be too cynical (I know – too late), but what do those that support 
sending this list to the Board hope to achieve by sending the list?

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy

  _____  

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 3:30 PM
To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls 
review/comment within 24 hours

 

I don't agree that anything further needs to be forwarded to the Board
at this point, and would be concerned that it just cause confusion and
delay. I don't see what they would get out of the points below that they
haven't gotten from the report.

So if it matters, my vote or opinion is that it not be sent. If the
Chairs deem there is consensus otherwise the. I would ask that at tleast
the last bullet be changed to simply read:

"While the WG has not identified exact examples there is a general
feeling that some exceptions could be granted."

There were many more examples discussed than the two cited in the text
below. Either they all should be cited or none at all, otherwise it
gives more weight to the two cited than there really is at this point.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points --
> pls review/comment within 24 hours
> From: "Mike O'Connor" 
> Date: Mon, October 25, 2010 1:33 pm
> To: vertical integration wg 
> 
> hi all,
> 
> this is the revised version of the bullet-points that Roberto proposed to the 
> list -- thanks to all who contributed during our call. we'd like to leave 
> them open for comments over the next 24 hours, and then forward them to the 
> Board in anticipation of their meeting this Thursday.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> 
> � Compliance is key (the working group spent a considerable amount of time 
> discussing the issue). Whatever the rules established for the new TLDs, we 
> need adequate leadership, processes and resources in place to enforce them;
> � There is no consensus on either full vertical integration or full vertical 
> separation;
> � We have compiled a list of potential harms that may be associated with 
> either complete separation or complete integration. We have not finalized the 
> list, we have not focused on potential harms associated with partial 
> integration or separation, and we do not have consensus on the list we do 
> have.
> � 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.
> 
> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109 
> fax 866-280-2356 
> web http://www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)