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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Although I personally disagree with Tim and Jeff that the bullets serve no 
purpose, I agree that they should not be sent directly the Board. This group 
should report to Council if it feels it has anything further to add to it's 
previous report. It is then up to the Council to decide whether it wants to act 
on the WG's recommendation or not. That should be done by the Council through a 
vote on a motion.

Stéphane

Envoyé de mon iPhone4

Le 25 oct. 2010 à 23:27, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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.)