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

[Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

Thanks to allow non GNSO participants to be part of this discussion and to make 
(sometime) proposals.

As I don’t know:

1/ the list of Board members on this list

2/ the list of Board members reading the mails of this list

And as I would like to have an equal information to all the Board members, I 
still support the co-chairs sending this 4 bullet points to the all Board.

All the best

Sébastien Bachollet

 <mailto:sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

+33 6 07 66 89 33

 

De : Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Envoyé : mercredi 27 octobre 2010 05:23
À : sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc : cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx; 
mike@xxxxxxxxxx; roberto@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls 
review/comment within 24 hours

 

GNSO policy WGs do not make up their own rules and processes. They are
formed as a result of an action of Council and communicate with Council,
not directly with the Board. That said, those on the Board that follow
this list just saw your post anyway. 


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points
> -- pls review/comment within 24 hours
> From: Sébastien Bachollet
> Date: Tue, October 26, 2010 2:26 pm
> To: 
> Cc: "'Gomes, Chuck'" , "'Ron Andruff'"
> , "'Margie Milam'"
> , "'Mike O'Connor'" , 
> "'Roberto Gaetano'" 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> +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" 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" 
> Date: Mon, October 25, 2010 5:07 pm
> To: "'Neuman, Jeff'" , "'Tim
> Ruiz'"
> ,
> 
> Cc: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>