Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Let's slow down the discourse here

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I see milton's point and agree.

The only thing I think that was done was a suggestion by me to add an agenda 
item on sending the Board a list of clarification questions on the resolution 
they passed. I agree we should discuss the list of questions on the call next 
week and then finalize that list as quickly as possible after the meeting to 
send to the Board.

Other than that, we have just been gathering information for the most part for 
the WG to ultimately review (as that is required by the objectives passed by 
the GNSO Council).


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder' ; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri Mar 19 15:20:08 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Let's slow down the discourse here

Stephane,
Yes, the Council "formed" the WG at the end of the Nairobi meeting 9 days ago. 
But the very small number of people who happened to be in Nairobi, or who 
happened to be connected to the drafting team, must not consider themselves to 
be the official "working group." This WG absolutely should not be allowed to 
carry on any real business even before the official call for volunteers has 
expired.

The idea that "whoever gets here first" is entitled to a first-mover advantage 
in setting agendas and defining issues is simply unacceptable procedure. I am 
shocked that this is not self-evident to everyone here. If you're forming a WG 
and you issue a deadline for joining it you don't start working until the WG is 
formed. End of story. If you think the March 22 joining deadline is too late, 
you should have set it earlier.

There is no serious value to be gained by acting differently. If you claim that 
important business will be conducted or decisions made in the next three days 
then you are effectively disenfrachising anyone who joins during that period.

I see no reason why this discussion can't be cooled off for two or three days 
and conducted in a more organized manner.

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>



________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 1:58 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Let's slow down the discourse here

Milton, Mike,

The group already exists. It had its first F2F meeting in Nairobi (with remote 
part as well). I do not see why the fact that we are now in the process of 
inviting volunteers to join should lead us to limit the discussion that is 
already taking place amongst those who are already members of the WG.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 19 mars 2010 à 18:13, Michael D. Palage a écrit :

Hello All,
I think Milton makes a very valid point. I think all sides need to slow down 
and go to their respective corners and wait until all the team members are in 
place.
This is a very passionate issue for most participants (myself included), in 
fact no sane person would likely sign up for this Working Group if they did not 
have some strongly held beliefs one way or the other.
Perhaps we could get the announcer that does all the prize boxing matches to 
begin Monday’s Call with his famous phrase -  “Let’s get ready to rumble.” 
(Just an attempt for some light humor)
I think the ICANN Board did the right thing in passing a Draconian resolution 
that created an environment where opposing parties now have a vested interest 
to find some common ground.  If the free speech and non-commercial types were 
able to find common ground with the trademark and IP interests, I am optimistic 
that this diverse group can achieve the same outcome.
Just my two cents, and I look forward to some interesting, passionate, yet 
constructive exchanges in the months ahead.
Best regards,
Michael
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 12:33 PM
To: 'Jannik Skou'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Let's slow down the discourse here
 Is this WG officially formed and operational yet? My impression is that it's 
not yet formed until the Monday Mar 22 deadline has passed.
If that is true, let's withhold discussion of substantive policy issues until 
the date for volunteering has passed and everyone who has a right to be here is 
actually here.

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jannik Skou
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 5:26 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Naive suggestion for organizing WG

All,

this being my debut in such a WG, please forgive me if you find my proposal for 
handling the "magnitude of the WG issue" being naïve or manipulating:

Idea: should we take an unbinding "poll" or "vote" in the first call (or by 
email) on the different positions (see draft below, please add/correct if 
positions are missing or misunderstood). My gut feeling - based on emails in 
this mailing list and various published statements - is that the vast 
majorities of stakeholders are somewhere in C1-C5 (combinations hereof, plus 
new ideas most likely...):

If that is the case, maybe we could then create smaller WGs to dig into 
pitfalls/benefits of each (and more than listed below) and then take a debate/ 
vote on these issues in the larger WG forum?

VI Positions and Issues
A: “AGAINST VI” (Zero Co-ownership):
Vertical Integration  > Excessive Market Power ( “gaining insight knowledge on 
consumer behavior”, discriminate other registrars etc… >  Harm Competition > 
Harm Consumers (Monopoly, high prices, lack of incentives for innovative 
services etc.).
B: “PRO VI” (no restrictions):
Vertical Integration: “No harm in the past” (several examples), possible for 
“small” or “narrow TLD Registry” to promote own TLDs (less dependency on large 
registrars)> benefit consumers better pricing and services for consumers (i.e. 
no “double marginalization”)
C: “VI OK, but” (“moderated, limited, exceptions”)
C1: VI OK, if Market Power < 40%-60%
Report SALOP/WRIGHT – if market power reaches 40 % (3 different options – 
“prohibit”, “45 days delay”, or “notification” (governmental anti trust 
authorities)).
(Issue: defining market power – based on all gTLDs (or only new ones including 
the latest such as .mobi ? .tel? .asia? .me? And future TLDs? Or later in own 
TLD on only?)
C2: Limited Co-ownership OK
Definition: Max ownership 20-25 %? (Salop/Wright) – or the 15% …?
C3: VI OK for “Single Organization”
(i.e. dotBrand standard and restricted / community based and restricted- narrow 
and small TLDs)
CRA Report: “Single Organization TLD” OK if registry (registrar) and registrant 
are the same entity. Questions how to define such TLDs. Would employees, 
business partners still be part of “one organization?” – how about fans or 
consumers…?
C4: VI OK until TLD has reached significant volume of registrations
OK with one preferred (VI) registrar until 50,000 domain registrations (or 
100,000 domain registrations)
C5: AND co-ownership ok, but no cross-activities in “own TLD”
--
TIME PRESSURE:
If no compromise (Policy Recommendation by GNSO) is made – the default board 
resolution from Nairobi (“no co ownership”?) will be enforced in DAG4/Final 
version…(?)
WHO IS WHERE?
Anybody in A? or B? Could we make sub groups on C1-C5? Or unbinding “polls” on 
C1-C5?
¨
Does this make sense?
Best regards
Jannik Skou, Partner, Thomsen Trampedach GmbH