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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

I have been catching up and reading through this chain and still cannot figure 
out what we are arguing/discussing/deciding here. I understand the meaning of 
the 4 bullet points below and while I may not agree with all the language 
below, even if I did,  I am not clear why we want to send this to the Board. 
Will it make a difference in their decision making process if they know one of 
these bullet points?  Do we think they do not know the information below?
I was for sending the Initial Report because I believed that was the product of 
a great deal of work and the Board needed to see it. These 4 bullet points, not 
so much.

Jeff




From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Sébastien Bachollet
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 12:27 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Ron Andruff'; 'Margie Milam'; 'Mike O'Connor'; 'Roberto 
Gaetano'
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls 
review/comment within 24 hours

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
sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Mon, October 25, 2010 5:07 pm
To: "'Neuman, Jeff'" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"'Tim Ruiz'"
<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
<mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:27 PM
To: Tim Ruiz; mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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

________________________________
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.