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

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

Hi Milton,

I don't even understand why you are making the points your make in your first 2 
paragraphs. I never suggested that a small group of people should have 
"first-to-the-WG" advantage. I said that the conversations that have started 
should not be stifled just because the deadline for volunteers hasn't passed 
yet.

As far as the group's official business goes, I have compiled an agenda for the 
meeting next week which clearly lays out the points the group needs to address.

If you have been following the group's discussions, you may have seen that 
there have been a couple of suggestions on the list for some proposed agenda 
points not to be discussed. I argued that we leave those agenda points in there 
and if, during the call, the group does not want to discuss, then we won't. But 
that we do not discard those points beforehand simply because a couple of 
people are vocal on the list ahead of the WG being complete (that to me would 
be putting the cart before the horse).

But as far as discussion goes, I think there has been some useful discussion on 
the list so far and I see no reason to stifle that. Indeed, there have been 
some really useful suggestions, like Jeff Neuman volunteering to compile a list 
of questions. I know you agree that these are useful, as you have reprinted 
those questions in your latest blog post. So should we have put off Jeff's 
compilation until next week? I see no reason why.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 19 mars 2010 à 20:20, Milton L Mueller a écrit :

> 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
> 
>  
> 
> 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] 
>> On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 12:33 PM
>> To: 'Jannik Skou'; 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
>> 
>> From: 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
>> 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
>> 
>