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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Some good points Eric. That's why the exceptions topic needs further
scrutiny. It is not as easy as creating undefined labels for exceptions.
The nuances need to be examined so as to avoid gaming and/or creating
unfair competition. I hope the Board takes that into careful
consideration. 


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points
>  -- pls review/comment within 24 hours
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, October 26, 2010 10:20 am
> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>,        vertical integration wg
> <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> On 10/25/10 11:46 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >
> > At 25/10/2010 06:36 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/25/10 2:33 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> >>
> >> > � 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;
> >>
> >> Please note that we do not have consensus on this point.
> >>
> >> ....
> >>
> >> So I'd like to see "adequate leadership, processes and resources"
> >> changed to "reasonable goals, adequate staffing, risk informed
> >> processes and resources"
> >
> > Eric, I agree that it would be foolish to adopt rules that difficult
> > or impossible to enforce, and that reasonable goals are desirable. But
> > I am far too pragmatic to believe that we will do this. Whatever the
> > rules and goals, we better prepare to have compliance deal with it. So
> > I generally like the original statement. Except for the "adequate
> > leadership" part. We want someone who got more than a C+ on leadership
> > qualities!
> 
> What would not be useful is a hire who mistakes being loud and 
> dogmatic for leadership. That was the last head of security hire.
> 
> Since the 2000 round, the art of responding to an ICANN RFP for new 
> gTLDs has not gotten simpler, or less expensive as an authoring 
> exercise -- I say that having written some of applications for 2000, 
> for the .org redel, for the .net redel, for the 2003 round, that is, 
> as an authority on the subject. Despite the utility of registries like 
> .museum, and registries like .cat, the total cost of "compliance" with 
> ICANN application formalism is now such that there can be no 
> registries starting from a mere 2,000 euros and community desire.
> 
> I like and respect Stacy Burnette and Connie Brown in Compliance, but 
> the possibility that the pursuit of "Vertical Integration" for some 
> will lead to undifferentiated burdens for all in a corporate culture 
> of escalating formalisms, all under some hotshot keen on making his or 
> her mark on ICANN as a stepping stone in a career mostly outside of 
> the industry, and likely to be as poorly informed as the economists 
> we've been saddled with as "experts", is an avoidable outcome.
> 
> The nature of "compliance" for a .paris, in which the public 
> administration of the City of Paris is an active policy participant, 
> and operationally informed, and the registry operator is also 
> exercising a registrar function for that name space, and/or others, is 
> not identical with the nature of "compliance" for a .vegas (Las Vegas 
> Nevada) in which the public administration has simply offered a 
> "non-objection" statement and has selected an operator based upon 
> revenue maximization expectations.
> 
> If we don't make plain there are shades of gray, it is possible that 
> the one-size-fits-all mentality of some in ICANN leadership will 
> create a "compliance" that is unlike what many of us imagine we mean.
> 
> Eric