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

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Alex,

Please send it to Gisella and she will post it.

Best regards,
Margie

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Gakuru [mailto:gakuru@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:43 PM
To: Margie Milam; gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-consumercci-dt] FW: Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from 
Consumercci-dt

Thanks Margie,

Where do we post our SOI for this group?

appreciated,

Alex

On 7/28/11, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>

--
Sent from my mobile device