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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

BTW, from everything I am aware of regarding lead times for Board or
Council consideration, there is no way for the WG to get anything in
front of either at this point.

 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points
-- pls review/comment within 24 hours
From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, October 25, 2010 5:07 pm
To: "'Neuman, Jeff'" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Tim Ruiz'"
<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

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.)