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

["Scott Austin" <saustin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Scott Austin 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Wed Nov 10 04:15:20 2010
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] ICANN Board VI Resolution 


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’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” 
organization. 

 

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.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael
 
 



--------------------------------------------------------

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 
http://www.gordonrees.com