RE: [council] Interim Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries (Phase I)

["Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>]

I second it and hope that it will not be opened again. There is no reason to
try to control things which are impossible to control. 

 

--andrei

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 8:09 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Interim Report on Vertical Integration Between
Registrars and Registries (Phase I)

 

Colleagues,

 

In light of the Board's VI decision and now that the new version of the AG
is out, I would like to propose a motion to end the VI WG at this time.

 

Please understand that I am making this motion in the interest of the
Council's task management. At this stage, there simply no longer seems to be
any reason to continue to hold the VI slot open in our ongoing project list.
This of course does not mean that the project should not be re-opened at a
later date, say when we have the benefit of the 1st round's experience under
our collective belts...

 

It is my understanding that the group itself is mostly OK to disband and
that both co-chairs are eager to move on to pastures new.

 

I realize that this motion is submitted after the deadline, so I will have
to request an exception to the 8-day posting limit from the Council. I
believe that it is worth granting this exception in this case, as there is
no more PDP work to be done on this item at this time, and deferring to our
Cartagena meeting rather than tackling this now at our Nov 18 meeting will
not change that fact.

 

Would anyone object to this exception being granted? Would anyone be willing
to second the motion?

 

Thanks,

 

Stéphane

Le 11 nov. 2010 à 02:26, Adrian Kinderis a écrit :





Good logic applied here.

 

I support this approach.

 

Adrian Kinderis




 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:00 PM
To: Margie Milam
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Interim Report on Vertical Integration Between
Registrars and Registries (Phase I)

 

Thank you Margie and thanks to all the VI WG participants.

 

In light of the Nov 5 Board decision
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm) I wonder if the
Council would not be best advised at this point to put the PDP on hold and
to disband the WG until after the first round of new gTLDs?

 

Merely looking at this from the resource management point of view, would it
not be premature for the Council to ask for the work of "developing a long
term solution for both new gTLD an existing gTLDs" to be pursued before
there has been adequate opportunity to study the effects of the
no-separation policy on the first batch of new gTLDs?

 

Stéphane

Le 9 nov. 2010 à 23:54, Margie Milam a écrit :






Dear Councilors,

 

On behalf of the VI PDP Working Group, I am pleased to inform you that the
VI Working Group has published its Interim Report on Vertical Integration
between Registrars and Registries (Phase I).  This Interim Report describes
the absence of a consensus within the VI Working Group for any
recommendations for the first round of new gTLDs (Phase I of the PDP).
With Phase I of the PDP complete,  the VI Working Group intends to suspend
its activities pending further  instructions from the GNSO Council for
conducting Phase II of the PDP, which is expected to  focus on developing a
long term solution for both new gTLD and existing gTLDs.     

 

Please note that due to its size, the Interim Report is posted on the WIKI
page for the VI Working Group below, and will be posted on the GNSO Council
website shortly.

 

https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?vertical_integration_pdp

 

 

Best Regards,

 

Margie

 

____________

 

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

____________