Re: [council] RE: Notice To GNSO Council with regard to the Board Resolution addressing Vertical Integration

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>