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

[Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

After reading all the comments and taking into account the proposal changes
(I am agree with), I suggest the following 4 bullet points to be send to the
Board.

 

? 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, reasonable goals, appropriate levels of staffing,
risk informed processes and resources in place to enforce them;

? There is no consensus on full vertical integration, complete vertical
separation, or any hybrid proposal to date

? 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, there is a general feeling
that some exceptions could be granted.

 

 

Sébastien Bachollet

 <mailto:sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

+33 6 07 66 89 33

 

De : owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] De
la part de Gomes, Chuck
Envoyé : mercredi 27 octobre 2010 01:54
À : Ron Andruff; Margie Milam; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points --
pls review/comment within 24 hours

 

My personal reasoning was very simple:  A simple and brief communication
listing the summary points that are supported by the WG could be helpful to
the Board if it was received before the Board meeting on 28 October; if such
a communication is sent to the Council and then to the Board, then it would
not be received before 28 October.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:53 AM
To: 'Margie Milam'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points --
pls review/comment within 24 hours

 

Perhaps Chuck might weigh in on this to clarify the matter, but my written
comment (below) reported what was discussed with the GNSO Chairman in this
regard.  (Sorry if I put words into your mouth, Margie.  Not intended.)

 

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).

 

To be clear, I am pushing this closure for the sole reason of finishing this
phase of the work in a responsible manner.  The next phase and who will be
involved in it is separate matter.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:28 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points --
pls review/comment within 24 hours

 

Hi- 

Just to clarify my comments-  I did not indicate that something needs to be
sent to the Board from the VI WG at this time.   My point was that the
public comments need to be properly evaluated and included in the Final
Report, which would be sent to the GNSO Council upon completion of the Phase
I work.  The GNSO Council would then decide whether to approve of the
recommendations (if any) and/or to  send  the Final Report to the Board.


 

Best Regards, 

 

Margie

 

__________

 

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

__________

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 5:15 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: Ron Andruff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Neuman,Jeff; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points --
pls review/comment within 24 hours

 

Once again, I agree with Tim on process and do not believe Margie at any
point implied the WG should send directly to the Board.

 

Stéphane

Envoyé de mon iPhone4


Le 26 oct. 2010 à 00:14, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

A final report is different, but that goes to Council, not the Board. The
Council reviews and then Council sends it on to the Board. If that's what
we're talking about, fine. But it didn't seem to me that everyone had bought
into a final report and wrapping up the WG just yet.

 

Tim 

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