Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton +1

On 14 Jun 2010, at 15:21, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
> Ron:
> I Don't agree with your dismissal of the poll. Even though CAM did not do 
> well in the poll it was a huge leap forward in terms of knowing who stands 
> where, and why, and what kinds of issues need to be negotiated to overcome 
> differences. Thanks to Mikey for putting it together. In particular, the 
> "live with" option shows the areas and people where compromise is possible. 
> 
> Further, the fact that 1/3 of the WG members haven't chosen to vote is not a 
> serious problem at all. email lists are known to harbor many lurkers who 
> either i) have lost interest and are not paying attention; ii) don't have 
> strong views or iii) have not made up their mind. 
> 
> Further, all the votes that I saw up there were active participants in the 
> WG. Please do not suggest that 
> 
> It's a data point, let's use it. Dont' try to denigrate it because you don't 
> like the results. Facts are facts. I say this as someone whose pet proposal 
> did not do all that well, remember. 
> 
> --MM
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Ron Andruff [randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 3:30 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'Alan Greenberg'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
> 
> It has been unfortunate that I have not been able to participate more fully 
> on the list during this past as well as the coming week, but at the same time 
> it is enlightening for me as I stepped from the lively debate only to catch 
> up on the multitude of posts a few days later…
> 
> As I read through the various thoughts and positions – and polls – it appears 
> to me that several things are happening as we approach Brussels:
> 
> 
> 1.  The active members of the WG are so focused on ensuring that whichever 
> proposal they stand behind are promoted over all others that the important 
> questions that are being asked on the list are quickly passed over on the 
> list to move on to anything else that will win the day for one or another’s 
> proposal rather than being given the serious thought and consideration they 
> deserve;
> 2.  Polls are being presented “to gain a clearer picture of where stand – or 
> where there is room to compromise” but they are corrupted because only about 
> 1/3 of the registered Working Group members are voting (the other 2/3 
> continue to lurk!), while at the same time it appears there is some seepage 
> coming in from outside the WG.  My recommendation: Let’s stop using 
> misleading/confusing polls and get back to dialogue.  Clearly, what is wholly 
> unscientific is destined to become the reference points when in fact they are 
> no such thing.  The current poll – as has been noted by several members – is 
> NOT a referendum on where the WG is.  Rather it is nothing more that what a 
> few people think…  It is not a WG position by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> The WG needs to get re-focused and be more realistic about what we can and 
> what we can’t do in the short term (Brussels), the middle term (final AG 
> cut-off date) and longer term (post 1st application round).
> 
> Allan’s post in response to Siva(/Milton) was exactly right…
> 
>> Then you need to define exactly who will negotiate what (and all parties to 
>> a negotiation actually need to be talking to each other) and explain how 
>> this will come to closure in sufficient time to publish the final Applicant 
>> Guidebook. Many of us have wish-lists of what we would really like to see, 
>> but the challenge is to finalize all of the details without delaying the 
>> first round of applications.<
> 
> We need to stop trying to read the tea leaves with polls and recognize that 
> there is a lot of work ahead of us that needs to be done in an orderly 
> manner.  We need to stop the one-upmanship to try to position the proposal 
> each of supports for “the best reception in Brussels” by working together 
> this week to prepare a balanced report on where the WG stands at this early 
> stage of our mandate.
> 
> While there appears to a lot of pressure building, it is quite clear that it 
> is all self-imposed to try force decisions.  I, for one, will not be 
> pressured into agreeing to something that I cannot support.  I stand by my 
> position that we need to continue researching and discussing ways forward – 
> particularly in the realm of compliance – until we come to the end of our 
> mandate and file our final report.  No amount of self-created pressure to act 
> before we have completed the requisite work will force a premature agreement.
> 
> I believe that there are many other WG members who feel the same, whether 
> they respond to our posts or choose to continue to lurk.  I trust that our 
> F2F in Brussels will bear some real fruit if we can continue to work 
> collegially toward a common solution rather than continuing to talk about 
> “polarized positions”.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 3:42 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
> 
> At 11/06/2010 08:18 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Alan Greenberg 
> <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
> At 11/06/2010 12:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> 
> Dear Milton Mueller,
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Milton L Mueller 
> <mueller@xxxxxxx<mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
> Another point (I am obviously in the process of filling out the poll)
> The "free trade" proposal is not really a proposal but a philosophy or 
> approach. It says that we should have a more open market and that cross 
> ownership limits are not the proper tool for counteracting stated or 
> perceived harms. I agree. In this respect, it is identical to the CAM 
> proposal. However, it does not propose any specific method for preventing 
> harms.
> 
> As you have noticed and quoted in one of your later messages in this thread, 
> I have indicated some broad measures. A lot of work needs to be done in 
> identifying  harms, categorizing harms and ranking them in terms of the 
> intensity of harm to the Registrants / Internet. Then the penalties can be 
> discussed and after that it would have to be explored if some or most of the 
> harm can be contained by the Domain Industry by an internal code of good 
> practices. I don't feel that it would be practical for ICANN to announce a 
> table of harms and penalties and 'discipline' the domain industry like a 
> school master. Sooner or later the Domain Industry has to work within and 
> evolve practices that are fair to one another for a start, and then develop 
> and agree on good practices that are fair to the Internet and fair to ICANN 
> and fair to the Registrants. There would be some areas left out, some 
> practices on which the Domain Industry would be reluctant to restrain itself. 
> The community can loo!
> k at those areas, focus on those areas and negotiate with the Industry, 
> prescribe measures to control those harms that the Industry clings to. It is 
> a lot of work, definitely not work for one person, not in such a hurry.
> Thank you for your positive remarks about the FT proposal.
> 
> The problem with this is that ICANN will not be in a position to take ANY 
> action if the causes for action (ie the harms or actions that lead to them) 
> and the remedies are not codified in the appropriate contracts. And that 
> included the contracts with the accredited registrars. So it cannot be left 
> to community discussions after-the-fact.
> 
> I did not say after-the-fact.
> 
> Then you need to define exactly who will negotiate what (and all parties to a 
> negotiation actually need to be talking to each other) and explain how this 
> will come to closure in sufficient time to publish the final Applicant 
> Guidebook.
> 
> Many of us have wish-lists of what we would really like to see, but the 
> challenge is to finalize all of the details without delaying the first round 
> of applications.
> 
> Alan
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.mobi/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845