RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] ICANN Board VI Resolution

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mike, I agree regarding the analysis if it will make you feel
better. But even more important is the incredible amount of time we all
seem to have wasted in this effort. From what I have been able to gather
this was a preordained outcome that was just a matter of time while the
Board and Staff proponents figured out how to convince the remaining
dissenters. It seems this had less to do with bottom up consensus and
was based more on mitigating risk.

Whatever. At this point it is what it is. But I don't appreciate being
duped into spending so much time and effort on a pointless endeavor
based on a resolution that was obviously a farse. So any after the fact
CYA analysis doesn't really interest me. What I would like is a heads up
next time so I can spend my efforts on something actually productive.   
 


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] ICANN Board VI Resolution
> From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, November 10, 2010 6:15 am
> To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
>  
> 
> I have been rather quiet over
> the past couple of months since Team Mixed Martial Arts produced the CAMv3
> proposal. Reading the press release from last night I was pleasantly 
> surprised that
> it appears that the Board actually incorporated a lot of the CAMv3 proposal
> into its final recommendation: robust auditing (check); graduated sanctions
> (aka CAM&#8217;s three strike sanction program); and referral to competition
> authorities. In fact the Board was perhaps more favorable of the CAMv3 
> proposal
> than S&W.
> 
>  
> 
> Overall this has proven to be
> one of the more interesting WGs I have participated in over my 11 year ICANN
> career. However, it really highlights a fundamental problem for ICANN, i.e.
> making decisions that have significant economic impact on market participants
> with diametrically opposed positions, as consensus can never be achieved. This
> is a conundrum for a &#8220;consensus based&#8221; organization. 
> 
>  
> 
> While I personally am not
> dissatisfied with the Board&#8217; resolution, the ICANN Board and staff owe
> the community more than just that press release, resolution and pending
> Applicant Guidebook text. The Affirmation of Commitments is clear and
> unequivocal &#8220;ICANN commits to perform and publish analyses of the
> positive and negative effects of its decisions on the public, including any
> financial impact on the public, and the positive or negative impact (if any) 
> on
> the systemic security, stability and resiliency of the DNS.&#8221;
> 
>  
> 
> Now while it may seem odd for a person that was on the
> winning side of a debate to hold ICANN accountable to this standard, I know
> there will be a time in the not to distant future where I will be on the 
> losing
> side and I will want the &#8220;published analysis.&#8221; What is good for 
> the
> goose is good for the gander. 
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks again for an interesting couple of months and
> thousands of emails that have filled my inbox.
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Michael 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>