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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter,

The community could not come to consensus on a change to 
the longstanding policy of separation. I am hopeful that 
you did not intend to imply that if the bottom up process 
does not produce the reults that some of the Board and 
Staff wanted then the Board will just create its own policy
top down. 

I hope that the Board keeps its word regarding VI as it
was given to the GNSO. To not do so would make it difficult 
to have any confidence in the Board whatsoever.


Tim


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Comment on Vertical Integration
> From: Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 4:41 pm
> To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx,       
> ICANN Board Members Only <board-only@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Dear RobertoAllow 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>