[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Comment on Vertical Integration

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the response Peter.  I need to give credit where do though:
Mikey O'Connor is co-chair of the VI PDP WG with Roberto, not me.

 

I join you in thanking all the co-chairs and all of the WG members for
the many long hours of diligent effort put into this.

 

Chuck

 

From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:peter.dengatethrush@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:41 PM
To: Roberto Gaetano
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; ICANN Board Members Only
Subject: Re: Comment on Vertical Integration

 

Dear Roberto

Allow me to begin by thanking you and Chuck both, as co-chairs, for
leading work on what has proved to be one of the most difficult issues
the GNSO has faced.

It has been a long march, and the board is aware of the many hours put
in by you both in leading this effort, and of the considerable time
taken by members of the WG in studying this problem, and attempting to
reach a compromise solution. Thank you.

 

By copy of this email, I am sharing your report below with the board -
thank you for the clarity of your expression.

 

The board is faced, in the face of absence of a GNSO position, to
examine what should be done.

This is a matter we are actively considering.

 

My sense is that, while reluctant to appear to be making policy, the
Board is unwilling to allow stalemate in the GNSO policy development
process to act as an impediment to implementing other major policy work
of the GNSO, which calls for the introduction of new gTLDS.

Some kind of Board intervention appears to be required, and we are
considering that.

 

Again, my thanks to you both, and to those contributing through the
Working Group.

 

my personal regards

 

 

 

Peter Dengate Thrush

Chairman of the Board of Directors, 

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 

 

+64 4 4998959 (DDI)

+64 21499888  (mobile)

+64 4 4710672 (fax)

 

 

 

On Oct 28, 2010, at 8:17 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:





Peter, 

As you know, we co-chair the Vertical Integration WG. 

Our aim, as co-chairs, has been to reach consensus on a document that
could be useful input for the Board's imminent decisions on the
deployment of new TLDs. However, the report that will conclude Phase 1
of the process is still being reworked, and the working group will not
be able to send it to the GNSO Council in time for the Council to make a
decision (and formulate a timely recommendation for the Board) in
compliance with the GNSO PDP process.

Thus, we would like to submit a few broad points to the attention of the
Board in our personal capacity.  We believe that the WG has worked hard
and has reached some agreement (although no consensus call has been made
yet) on the following points:

        *       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;

 

        *       The working group has 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.

 

To the best of our knowledge, two Directors have been subscribing to the
WG list.   They can provide you and the rest of the Board with more
details on the process followed and the results achieved.

Please let us know if there is anything else that could be useful from
our side. 

Best regards, 

Roberto Gaetano 
Mike O'Connor