[gnso-consumercci-dt] FW: Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from Consumercci-dt

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All, 

Please find below the chat transcript from today's call.   Please note that the 
next meeting for this DT is scheduled for 10 Aug at 2000 UTC, and will run for 
90 minutes.   

All the best,

Margie

-----Original Message-----
From: margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:06 PM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from Consumercci-dt

  CLO:Hi all
  CLO:*sigh*  pity no one assisted  you in getting it  *right*  Rosemary
  CLO:No point inOCL  & I taking it TO  ALAC  to endorse as a CCWG  till GNSO  
do what whatever  THEY  so desire   I' ll also hold off on what I was proposing 
woth ccNSO as well  *SOGH*
  CLO:once it starts  work as a pure GNSO CO  WG  I DOUBT it would  morph into 
a CWG  so WHY  would  the other AC's  & SO's  bother  doing other than working 
our own turf work and so  HAVE  to  spread  our  resources   thinky
  CLO:THinky  = Thinly ...  So  IF  we were to have a copy of the probable  
GNSO Charter  to work "with"  that would be most useful.... 
  Margie Milam:I have posted Wendy's suggestion in the Notes section below the 
agenda
  CLO:AI  alsoo would be for GNSO  to also  request  formal and informal 
(general) ccNSO, ALAC and GAC "membership/ reps"  for the GNSO  WG  Consumer 
Trust Choice andMetrics  work  
  Rosemary:thanks Margie
  CLO:Yes  I agree they are not mutually exclusive  BUT  if we were to just use 
 ONE  that would not IMO  satisfy *our (where our = end user / consumer / 
registrant) needs*  to that end  outcomes  that have wider more inclusive  
definitions to work with would I beleive assist our ability  to meet the AoC 
desired measurements  better...
  CLO:and YES  we need to be careful about  the term supplier to meet pur needs 
 issue that Steve is raising  now is VERY appointment  re suitabliity  to 
purpose  =>  analogy  consumer care  re utility supply origuin is less than 
choice of quality suply  that meets their needs preferably where they can get 
the "best deal to meet their needs  sometimes  that means a start with fewer 
choices and more limited costing diversity  that the changes over time but the 
utility /service  options  will change  this is actually  good for the metrics  
use  where we can have an assumption  that price points  will lowere  or 
diversity of choice oin price  will continue to occur over time  post gTLD 
launch
  CLO:yep  I agree Jonathan  a measure of course of how price *may* change over 
time  could be useful for us to  watch / measure as ongoing measure of metrics
  Jonathan Zuck:Even though we're talking about "generic" TLDs, this round is 
truly going to represent a movement towards the specific and away from the 
generic
  Alex Gakuru:sharing two links: 1. http://www.domain-price-wars.com/ 
  Alex Gakuru:2. http://icannwiki.com/index.php?title=Domain_Statistics
  Steve DelBianco:Competition: the availability, at reasonable prices and 
terms, of TLDs in every script and language, from multiple TLD operators.   
Competition measures would include relative price comparisons, quantitiy of TLD 
operators, and presence of new entrants as TLD operators.  
  Jonathan Zuck:percentage of defensive versus useful registrations
  Margie Milam:yes-  I'll do it
  Steve DelBianco:if we use that as the competition definition, we can move the 
"suitable" purpose and script terms into  the CHOICE definition
  CLO:Carlos  assume the  Joint / Cross Community WG  will NOT happen  and this 
is just  work  for the GNSO one that WILL get chartered
  CLO:yes  this is unfortunate  but it is what it is
  CLO:issue is we need to get i9n with the work
  CLO:having  our discussions  recorded ona public  access Wiki  will help 
minimise the frustration of repetition aspect of what Carlos raised
  Alex Gakuru:@jonathan, will all regitrants be asked if 'defensive' or 
'useful' registrations?
  CLO:Margie  your both Psycic and a wonder  thanks  saves me asking for just 
that :-)
  Carlos Dionisio Aguirre:.mi position is : if we want to have an inclusive and 
open joint WG between SO/AC. I think is needed to have the opinions about this 
concepts coming from differents actors evolved. we are talking about concepts  
very complex to define, and the definition will be different from different 
actors. on the other hand every concept (Competition, Consumer choice & 
consumer trust) are very related among them, and all of them have to do with 
different interest. The discussion is very productive, usefull but  not all 
opinions are here. 
  Jonathan Zuck:well one measure of a defensive registration might be whether 
it's a new site or just a pointer . It's not anything we hold anyone to, it's 
just something to track.
  CLO:Well Carlos  that very sticky call is VERY much a GNSO  issue now/atm  so 
as a Coincillor  do your best to GET the GNSO  Council to support the option OF 
a Joint  or Cross CWG
  Jonathan Zuck:@Alex/CLO well one measure of a defensive registration might be 
whether it's a new site or just a pointer . It's not anything we hold anyone 
to, it's just something to track.
  Carlos Dionisio Aguirre:@Ill try.
  CLO:Yes  Jonathan  agreed  that would be a useful  deffinition
  Carlos Dionisio Aguirre:@clo Ill try
  CLO:  Jonathan  the Board Resolution * I thought*  specified  a request for 
ADVICE  form the AC & SO's
  CLO:I'm OK  with 14 day breaks  and at thiss time is fine
  Alex Gakuru:Flexible
  Debra Hughes:flexible
  Steve DelBianco:2 weeks and this time is okay
  john berard:I am OK with every two weeks at this hour
  CLO:work it  to best  fit in with Margie
  Steve DelBianco:anyone else think we need 90 minutes instead of an hour?
  CLO:yup  fine by me
  Jonathan Zuck:90 is fine with me
  Steve DelBianco:it just seems that we run out of time before we run out of 
steam at 60 m,inutes
  Alex Gakuru:bye all
  Debra Hughes:bye