FW: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration
Please note the following communication from the co-chairs of the VI PDP WG. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:12 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Roberto Gaetano Subject: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration To: GNSO Council From: Roberto Gaetano and Mikey O'Connor (VI working-group co-chairs) Subject: Notice with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration ____ In response to Section 2.11 (Vertical Integration) of the 25 September 2010 resolution by the ICANN Board, we would like to notify the GNSO Council that to date the Working Group has not reached a consensus view on vertical integration. We plan to incorporate public comments into the Interim Report and provide the Council with a Final Report in advance of the Council's 18 November meeting.
Just saw this... sorry that is the way I read my email (back to front... it is a down under thing...)! My email still stands. I think the language needs to be included in Chuck's motion. Oh, I also think something needs to be said about the WG itself. We spent far too many hours recently debating the sending of an interim report to the Board. I suggested at the time that we should just call the report final as there was no way that consensus was going to be reached. I suggested in Brussels that consensus would not be reached. We didn't. Is what we have now any more advanced than at that point? Whilst we should be applauding all their hard work etc etc I think it is a flaw in the chairs to have allowed this to continue on without recognizing the end result was not going to change. I get that this will cause me some flak as no one is allowed to criticize anyone in the whole ICANN world but I still think this is a failure of the WG. Valuable time was waste in the pursuit of an unreachable goal. If we don't do debriefs of each WG as a Council we certainly should start. How do we expect to learn and grow? We certainly debrief regularly within our organization and the benefits are clearly visible. Thanks. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:56 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] FW: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration Please note the following communication from the co-chairs of the VI PDP WG. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:12 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Roberto Gaetano Subject: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration To: GNSO Council From: Roberto Gaetano and Mikey O'Connor (VI working-group co-chairs) Subject: Notice with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration ____ In response to Section 2.11 (Vertical Integration) of the 25 September 2010 resolution by the ICANN Board, we would like to notify the GNSO Council that to date the Working Group has not reached a consensus view on vertical integration. We plan to incorporate public comments into the Interim Report and provide the Council with a Final Report in advance of the Council's 18 November meeting.
I agree with your debrief idea Adrian. As a Council, we've had a lot of pressure from certain members of the community recently to make sure we only position ourselves as the manager of the PD process. That's fine, but in that case I agree we should get into the habit of asking the people actually tasked with that process to be accountable to us. However, in this instance I do not believe there was any wrong doing on the VI WG co-chairs' behalf. My read is that they were of a mind to let the work continue while there was the slightest chance of consensus happening. I think that is the right way to go. How many times in our own recent history have we seen deadlock break in the last few moments, just when it seemed all hope of a consensus had been lost? If memory serves, that is actually how we ended up with a bicameral structure on the Council: a last-minute compromise by all involved. Stéphane Le 30 sept. 2010 à 12:29, Adrian Kinderis a écrit :
Just saw this... sorry that is the way I read my email (back to front... it is a down under thing...)!
My email still stands. I think the language needs to be included in Chuck's motion.
Oh, I also think something needs to be said about the WG itself.
We spent far too many hours recently debating the sending of an interim report to the Board. I suggested at the time that we should just call the report final as there was no way that consensus was going to be reached. I suggested in Brussels that consensus would not be reached. We didn't. Is what we have now any more advanced than at that point?
Whilst we should be applauding all their hard work etc etc I think it is a flaw in the chairs to have allowed this to continue on without recognizing the end result was not going to change.
I get that this will cause me some flak as no one is allowed to criticize anyone in the whole ICANN world but I still think this is a failure of the WG. Valuable time was waste in the pursuit of an unreachable goal.
If we don't do debriefs of each WG as a Council we certainly should start. How do we expect to learn and grow? We certainly debrief regularly within our organization and the benefits are clearly visible.
Thanks.
Adrian Kinderis
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:56 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] FW: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration
Please note the following communication from the co-chairs of the VI PDP WG.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:12 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Roberto Gaetano Subject: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration
To: GNSO Council From: Roberto Gaetano and Mikey O'Connor (VI working-group co-chairs) Subject: Notice with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration ____
In response to Section 2.11 (Vertical Integration) of the 25 September 2010 resolution by the ICANN Board, we would like to notify the GNSO Council that to date the Working Group has not reached a consensus view on vertical integration.
We plan to incorporate public comments into the Interim Report and provide the Council with a Final Report in advance of the Council's 18 November meeting.
At the same time, we need to seek and demand finality of our working groups as we do of the Board. At a point, we need to call for a "final answer" (a la Who Wants to Be a Millionaire), whether that's consensus or "we have not reached consensus and need someone else to decide." We should, in our own process management, try to be clearer about setting these timelines. --Wendy On 09/30/2010 09:26 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
I agree with your debrief idea Adrian. As a Council, we've had a lot of pressure from certain members of the community recently to make sure we only position ourselves as the manager of the PD process. That's fine, but in that case I agree we should get into the habit of asking the people actually tasked with that process to be accountable to us.
However, in this instance I do not believe there was any wrong doing on the VI WG co-chairs' behalf. My read is that they were of a mind to let the work continue while there was the slightest chance of consensus happening.
I think that is the right way to go. How many times in our own recent history have we seen deadlock break in the last few moments, just when it seemed all hope of a consensus had been lost? If memory serves, that is actually how we ended up with a bicameral structure on the Council: a last-minute compromise by all involved.
Stéphane
Le 30 sept. 2010 à 12:29, Adrian Kinderis a écrit :
Just saw this... sorry that is the way I read my email (back to front... it is a down under thing...)!
My email still stands. I think the language needs to be included in Chuck's motion.
Oh, I also think something needs to be said about the WG itself.
We spent far too many hours recently debating the sending of an interim report to the Board. I suggested at the time that we should just call the report final as there was no way that consensus was going to be reached. I suggested in Brussels that consensus would not be reached. We didn't. Is what we have now any more advanced than at that point?
Whilst we should be applauding all their hard work etc etc I think it is a flaw in the chairs to have allowed this to continue on without recognizing the end result was not going to change.
I get that this will cause me some flak as no one is allowed to criticize anyone in the whole ICANN world but I still think this is a failure of the WG. Valuable time was waste in the pursuit of an unreachable goal.
If we don't do debriefs of each WG as a Council we certainly should start. How do we expect to learn and grow? We certainly debrief regularly within our organization and the benefits are clearly visible.
Thanks.
Adrian Kinderis
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:56 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] FW: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration
Please note the following communication from the co-chairs of the VI PDP WG.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:12 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Roberto Gaetano Subject: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration
To: GNSO Council From: Roberto Gaetano and Mikey O'Connor (VI working-group co-chairs) Subject: Notice with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration ____
In response to Section 2.11 (Vertical Integration) of the 25 September 2010 resolution by the ICANN Board, we would like to notify the GNSO Council that to date the Working Group has not reached a consensus view on vertical integration.
We plan to incorporate public comments into the Interim Report and provide the Council with a Final Report in advance of the Council's 18 November meeting.
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
Agreed. Thanks Wendy. That is exactly my point. Waiting until the last minute for consensus is tough if the last minute has not been defined... Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Thursday, 30 September 2010 11:38 PM Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] RE: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration At the same time, we need to seek and demand finality of our working groups as we do of the Board. At a point, we need to call for a "final answer" (a la Who Wants to Be a Millionaire), whether that's consensus or "we have not reached consensus and need someone else to decide." We should, in our own process management, try to be clearer about setting these timelines. --Wendy On 09/30/2010 09:26 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
I agree with your debrief idea Adrian. As a Council, we've had a lot of pressure from certain members of the community recently to make sure we only position ourselves as the manager of the PD process. That's fine, but in that case I agree we should get into the habit of asking the people actually tasked with that process to be accountable to us.
However, in this instance I do not believe there was any wrong doing on the VI WG co-chairs' behalf. My read is that they were of a mind to let the work continue while there was the slightest chance of consensus happening.
I think that is the right way to go. How many times in our own recent history have we seen deadlock break in the last few moments, just when it seemed all hope of a consensus had been lost? If memory serves, that is actually how we ended up with a bicameral structure on the Council: a last-minute compromise by all involved.
Stéphane
Le 30 sept. 2010 à 12:29, Adrian Kinderis a écrit :
Just saw this... sorry that is the way I read my email (back to front... it is a down under thing...)!
My email still stands. I think the language needs to be included in Chuck's motion.
Oh, I also think something needs to be said about the WG itself.
We spent far too many hours recently debating the sending of an interim report to the Board. I suggested at the time that we should just call the report final as there was no way that consensus was going to be reached. I suggested in Brussels that consensus would not be reached. We didn't. Is what we have now any more advanced than at that point?
Whilst we should be applauding all their hard work etc etc I think it is a flaw in the chairs to have allowed this to continue on without recognizing the end result was not going to change.
I get that this will cause me some flak as no one is allowed to criticize anyone in the whole ICANN world but I still think this is a failure of the WG. Valuable time was waste in the pursuit of an unreachable goal.
If we don't do debriefs of each WG as a Council we certainly should start. How do we expect to learn and grow? We certainly debrief regularly within our organization and the benefits are clearly visible.
Thanks.
Adrian Kinderis
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:56 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] FW: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration
Please note the following communication from the co-chairs of the VI PDP WG.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:12 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Roberto Gaetano Subject: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration
To: GNSO Council From: Roberto Gaetano and Mikey O'Connor (VI working-group co-chairs) Subject: Notice with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration ____
In response to Section 2.11 (Vertical Integration) of the 25 September 2010 resolution by the ICANN Board, we would like to notify the GNSO Council that to date the Working Group has not reached a consensus view on vertical integration.
We plan to incorporate public comments into the Interim Report and provide the Council with a Final Report in advance of the Council's 18 November meeting.
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
participants (4)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Gomes, Chuck -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Wendy Seltzer