Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] ICANN Board VI Resolution
- To: <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] ICANN Board VI Resolution
- From: "Scott Austin" <saustin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:50:30 -0800
This is a result each of the members of the WG can find some benefit from,
although it clearly opens the door for further work and analysis on the
compliance and enforcement mechanisms. That all seems beneficial to the process
to me and reflects well on our efforts and discussions over these past months.
The resolution appears to give us all some we should be encouraged to work
with. Maybe that result will provide a rough equivalent of consensus.
Sent: Wed Nov 10 04:15:20 2010
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] ICANN Board VI Resolution
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’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 “consensus based”
While I personally am not dissatisfied with the Board’ 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 “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.”
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
“published analysis.” 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.
San Francisco * San Diego * Los Angeles * Sacramento * Orange County * Las
Vegas * Portland * Seattle * Houston * Chicago * Phoenix * Dallas * New York *
Long Island * Florham Park * Denver * Miami
This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE
LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients
identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication,
you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination,
distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this
communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the
communication and destroy all copies.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE
To ensure compliance with requirements by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S.
tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
GORDON & REES LLP