[gnso-vi-feb10] Notes & Chat Transcript from today's VI PDP WG meeting

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find below the chat transcript and notes of today's VI PDP WG meeting.

With best regards,

Marika

===================================

Notes

Vertical Integration PDP Call  23 Mar 2010

Selection of Chair:  Two Candidates- Mikey O'Connor
- Roberto Gaetano

Discussion of having them be Co-Chairs.  Approval of Mikey and Roberto serving 
as Co-chairs

Should we limit size of WG?
No- not now.

Frequency of Meeting:  Weekly, 1 1/2 hours; Doodle to set up standard time per 
week

Discussion of Objective 5:
Milton suggestion to delete it.  Continue discussion on the list;
No resolution of Objective 5 today.  Straw Poll to follow immediately after 
call?  Yes-- three questions to be raised:  (i) shorter version of 5, (ii) 
delete Obj 5 altogether, and (iii) none of the above

======================

Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration

  Statton Hammock:I like this time
  Antony Van Couvering:Objective 5 got redacted
  Kathy Kleiman:I thought it was expanded -- again, it would be great to see 
the original.
  Michele Neylon:I can't make sense of that paragraph
  Michele Neylon:either it's badly written or I'm really tired
  Antony Van Couvering:Michele - both
  Eric Brunner-Williams:it is a reasonable time in europe (where i am) and a 
reasonable time in north america, it is unreasonable in asia.
  Margie Milam:Kathy- Not sure how to do a side by side
  Antony Van Couvering:Margie - how about one on top of the other?
  Kathy Kleiman:+1
  Kristina Rosette:ignore the Board resolution?  goodness.
  George Sadowsky:Agree with Mike
  Milton:should we also ignore the DAG?
  mike silber:@Kristina :-)
  Roberto:Eric, I think we can discuss this in the mailing list, in case we can 
use two times and flip-flop between them.
  avri:how do any options have standing?
  Nacho Amadoz:joining the call
  George Sadowsky:Well, a major intent of the Board resoultion was to give the 
policy process back to the community  -- as Bruce mentioned at the Board 
meeting.
  Milton:agree with Jeff here
  Milton:i have a very simple alternate language for Obj 5
  Michele Neylon:Nacho - que tal?
  Antony Van Couvering:@milton - put it out there
  avri:especially given the Board's decsion, i would agree at this point as 
well.
  Milton:might be useful to have the entire WG charter up now
  Eric Brunner-Williams:please update the "Note 5" workspace area
  Antony Van Couvering:Do "wholesale markets" mean secondary markets as well?
  avri:every decsin should be reviewed at the next meeting as well
  Statton Hammock:I can agree with deleting the phrase beginning with 
"constitute a material deviation....
  avri:you can put the motion in, but allow it to be withdrawn if the consensus 
goes awry
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):I agree with Stratton's suggestion
  Kristina Rosette:Agree with Stephane's characterization of Council thinking 
on timing.
  Milton:yes
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):sorry, statton
  Eric Brunner-Williams:i'm going to be off the A/V in a minute or so as my 
train and i part, a written summary would be helpful. thanks everyone.
  Richard Tindal:i agree with Milton
  Jeff Neuman:Nor do we have the expertise in this group
  Antony Van Couvering:I like Milton's idea
  mike silber:Using all information that has been collected by ICANN to date AS 
WELL AS OTHER INFORMATION THAT CAN BE COLLECTED WITHIN THE TIME FRAMES OF THE 
WG, determine THE MOST APPROPRIATE restrictions (IF ANY) and/or practices 
concerning registry-registrar separation and equivalent, non-discriminatory 
access (INCLUDING current and past restrictions and practices regarding 
registry-registrar separation) FOR BOTH NEW GTLDs AS WELL AS EXISTING GTLDs IN 
THE BEST INTERESTS OF (a) INTERNET USERS IN GENERAL AND (b) REGISTRANTS OF 
DOMAIN NAMES, AND (c) THE RETAIL AND WHOLESALE MARKETS FOR DOMAIN NAMES.
  Jeff Neuman:However, that research does need to be done
  Kristina Rosette:hate to rain on the parade, but we can't modify the Charter. 
Council has to.
  Stéphane Van Gelder:Agree with the idea of deleting Obj 5
  Milton:So, two simple alternatives: delete it altogether or chop off after 
"...nondiscriminatory acccess."
  Kathy Kleiman:Tx Mike!
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Obj 3 & 4 also have references to previous DAG
  Jothan Frakes:Mike S I like your wording but it leaves room for scope creep
  Eric Brunner-Williams:agree kristina, we had this problem on FF, charter 
needed (then) to go back to council
  Milton:Now that all objectives are up, it seems to be that most of what we 
want to do is covered in Obj 1.
  Margie Milam:The Final Approved Charter is Up now
  Statton Hammock:I like deleting Obj 5. I don't think it helps drive us to 
consensus.
  ken stubbs:kristina is correct here.. we can make recommendation to council..
  Jeff Neuman:I agree with Brian
  Jeff Neuman:We cannot change directions without the research
  Jothan Frakes:Brian, Jeff, the research / analysis inject delay
  Statton Hammock:We can build consensus without research.
  Jeff Neuman:Then stick with the Baseline proposal
  mike silber:COULD WE LOOK AT oNJECTVE 5 AS A PHASE 2 OF WORK?
  avri:i am comfortable with cutting 5 after access, but do not beleive we 
should remove 5.
  mike silber:/sorry about the caps/
  avri:i think there is merit in phasing the work
  Roberto:I don't think that objective 5 is essential, so we can chop it off 
without a big detriment
  Eric Brunner-Williams:research is good. persuasion without facts is .... iffy
  Jothan Frakes:+1 on striking from access to end of Obj 5
  Gisella Gruber-White:Steve Pinkos has joined
  Phil Buckingham:We have to have analysis to back up the work .
  Milton:if we do phase it, the research has to come first
  Antony Van Couvering:What is the diff btwn economic analyses that are subject 
to second-guessing, and fortune telling?
  Roberto:... and avoid the risk of losing a lot of time discussing on 
something that is controversial, but not essential
  Kristina Rosette:Disagree with Stephane about the Council issue.  The vote on 
the charter was dependent on having A version of objective 5.  There is 
definitely a chance that deleting it altogether could result in a different 
Council vote.
  Antony Van Couvering:Economic analyses to date have not solved any problems 
or been any basis for agreement
  avri:but perhaps we do have consensus on M's first suggestion.
  Kristina Rosette:@avri.  I think you're right.
  Jothan Frakes:Can we come to consensus on Milton's suggestion
  Milton:but the first suggestion does imply that we are purporting to know the 
"effects"
  Jeff Neuman:Avri - I need to give some thought to Milton's proposal and see 
it in writing before declaring consensus
  Alan:My comment that I can't make: Although I agree that we have neither the 
time nor resources to do a substantive and thorough analysis of impact, but we 
also cannot just ignore the issue.
  Milton:I don't thinkwe should admit defeat
  Richard Tindal:Mickey - i am very oppoed to extending timelines
  Jeff Neuman:I know people want to move fast, and I am not advocating delay, 
but we need to think about what we are proposing
  J.C. Vignes:Doesn't phasing means more delays?? We don't need more delays!
  Antony Van Couvering:Please see Objective 6 - should not delay introduction 
of new gTLDs
  J.C. Vignes:Phasing is a terrible idea and saying that Brussels is "just a 
step" is a terrible signal to send
  Jeff Neuman:Antony, how is objective 6 not being met?
  Palage:In the High Security Zone Working Group - our timeline is to get in 
done in a timely manner - we have decided to do month snapshot to inform the 
community that we are moving forward and making progress - artificial timelines 
help no one
  Alan:We may not need delays, but we also don't need bad policy either.
  Jeff Neuman:The Board has established a baseline
  avri:isn't the Dag' suggestion already gone based on the Board's decsion?
  Antony Van Couvering:See comments by JC, Tindal
  Jothan Frakes:absense of deadlines actually cause harm, though, mike p
  Ben Anderson:Even though the process has taken some considerable time 
already, consultation with all interested parties is necessary and is time 
consuming.
  Kristina Rosette:Liz - When do the WG guidelines go into effect?
  Statton Hammock:I am opposed to phasing. Let's see if we can't tackle 
Objectives 1-4 which don't require research, in my opinion.
  avri:the idea was not to do new studies but to talk our way through the work 
already done.  wasn't it?
  J.C. Vignes:I second Statton's comment
  Milton:yes
  mike silber:yes avri
  Jothan Frakes:+1 Statton
  Jeff Neuman:But the work done by staff was incomplete and insufficient at best
  Antony Van Couvering:+1 Statton
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):agree with statton
  Antony Van Couvering:I have a hard stop
  Statton Hammock:@Jeff. Indeed, but we are, where we are.
  avri:no hard stop for me.
  Frederick Felman:hard stop
  mike silber:HOWEVER - the Board resolution did NOT throw out the DAG 
suggestion. It threw it back to the GNSO to support / amend / impove
  ken stubbs:am free to continue for extra 1/2 hr if needed
  Richard Tindal:I think staff research to date was performed by well qualified 
parties
  J.C. Vignes:hard stop
  George Sadowsky:no hard stop
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:can keep going
  Stéphane Van Gelder:hard stop
  Jarkko Ruuska:no hard stop
  Milton:quick question: why can't we have a quick straw poll on deleting Obj 5 
vs cutting it in half?
  Liz Gasster:e are operating under the ''guidelines'' now but there is a 
process for finalizing after comment period, Working Group team finalizes, 
sends to PPSC
  mike silber:can carry on for another few minutes
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):can carry on
  Jeff Neuman:Richard - a 7 page double page report on the market analysis of 
vertical integration can hardly be deemed sufficient work;
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:keep going.  let's get through the agenda
  Statton Hammock:Are chats recorded or not?
  Kristina Rosette:@Liz: so what's the status of the WG guidelines that deal 
with requests for expert advice?
  Michele Neylon:Statton - usually not ..
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Is length of report the judge of the quality of the report?
  Marika Konings:Yes, chats can be recorded and circulated to the WG if the 
group would like to receive these
  avri:the phasing could have been decsions pertinent to the current round 
versus decsisisns related to incumbents and future rounds
  Margie Milam:The questions are up now
  Kristina Rosette:@Marika: Given how many people we have and how limited time 
is, it would be very helpful, I think, to have access to the chats
  Statton Hammock:Given the size of the group, I think it would be good to 
capture chats. A lot of substantive comments may be made here.
  Antony Van Couvering:Agree with Jeffrey Eckhaus - what does the size of the 
report have to do with anything?  As usual, the "quality" of any study seems to 
have to do with its conclusions and not the validity of its methodology
  Marika Konings:I will mail them to the WG after each call
  Liz Gasster:@ KR: that is really being dealt with in PDP review by PDP WT -- 
encouraging use of experts when/as needed
  Brian Cute:can we get #2 corrected to add "acting" to "those [acting] as 
registrars"
  Jothan Frakes:Antony, Agree, but like when support data is included
  Richard Tindal:given that we dont know what tlds will be applied for, or 
their intended business models, or how the market will react to them  I dont 
know how we would perform empirical research
  Antony Van Couvering:Richard, you risk making sense
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):I would focus on our work and not on asking 
questions to the board.  As mike said, they are looking for us to drive policy
  Milton:ok but htere are 49 people here
  Jothan Frakes:+1 Richard.    What kind of Empirical research happened prior 
to adding COM/NET/ORG?
  Antony Van Couvering:Must go.  Cheerio see you next week....
  Jeff Neuman:Agree with Roberto
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):or doodle, as I hope not to get huge amount of email
  Milton:ok
  Statton Hammock:48 attendees. How many more volunteers are not on the call?
  Jothan Frakes:[Great to hear Roberto's voice btw]
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:24 hour deadline on list. Sounds good
  Kristina Rosette:it shoudl ask both, in my view
  Milton:both
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):agreed, both
  ken stubbs:like to hear george's comments
  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:we can try redefining obj 5
  Jothan Frakes:good job Mikey
  Jeff Neuman:So milton's comment that the Board doesnt know what its 
resolution means is accurate?
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):thanks all
  Alan:Regarding question to Board, knowing exactly what the Board meant may 
increase chances that we find a solution and don't let that baseline come into 
being.
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):good job chairs
  avri:nice talking to y'all
  Kathy Kleiman:bye all
  Phil Buckingham:great start everyone
  mike silber:no alan it will not!
  Jeff Neuman:Mike - What did the Board intend?
  Jeff Neuman:What is the baseline?
  Jothan Frakes:Alan, seems like a non-starter
  Jothan Frakes:I thought that the effort of this group was to carve holes in 
0% with reasonable justifications
  George Sadowsky:Jothan - I can't comment on what the goal of the group is, 
but I think the intent of the Board was to return the policy issues to the 
community and trust that the result would be ...
  George Sadowsky:a policy that was accenptable to the community and recognized 
ICANN's obligation to the public interest.
  Jothan Frakes:different words, but I got that too
  avri:and i thank the board for that.  it seems like we have a fainrly, as 
goerge said, Draconian baseline.  if we want to move off of theat, we come to 
consensus.
  George Sadowsky:exactly
  Jothan Frakes:agree
  Jeff Neuman:Everyone says we have a draconian baseline, but no one can define 
what that baseline is
  Jothan Frakes:and then, with justifications from the community, holes can get 
poked in 0
  Jeff Neuman:I am a littlle speachless on this
  Richard Tindal:i think the Board resolution is pretty clear
  Jothan Frakes:Jeff, baseline seems pretty clear to me
  Richard Tindal:zero cross ownership in new TLDs
  Jothan Frakes:=0% cross ownership
  Milton:duh
  Jeff Neuman:Jothan - I have talked to 16 different people on this and not one 
of them comes back with the same explanation
  Milton::-)
  Richard Tindal:only ambiguity is whether or not a DNS provider is a registry 
services provider
  Richard Tindal:i would say 'not'
  Jothan Frakes:depends on if one has a TLD or not now, and if they have any 
registrar/registry cross ownership
  George Sadowsky:Jothan - agree that 0=0%.  But is't there a larger framework 
in which to consider these issues - other dimensions?
  Michele Neylon:Jothan - what if I provide colo services to them?
  Michele Neylon:Seriously like - it's not that bloody simple
  Richard Tindal:I'm interpreting 'registry services' per the tech definition 
in DAG
  Milton:all those picky but important detail questions should be considered in 
our policy making. to expect the board to have anticpated them is unrealistic.
  Jeff Neuman:Agree with Michele; there is a definition of registry services in 
teh contracts
  Richard Tindal:so colo services would not be registry services
  Jeff Neuman:and lots of entities fall within there
  Jeff Neuman:Iron Mountain performs registry services as an escrow provider
  Jothan Frakes:@George...  yes, certainly that's how we as a WG carve holes in 
0%
  Michele Neylon:Jeff - exactly
  Michele Neylon:We provide registry services - depending on who you ask
  Michele Neylon:and some of them I only found out about by accident
  Jeff Neuman:and "acting as a registrar" - does that mean with the TLD which 
you are the registry...or being a registrar for any TLD?
  Mikey O'Connor:Jeff and all -- how about if we the WG were to answer your 
questions for the Board, rather than the other way around?
  Jothan Frakes:@jeff, @Michele you're saying that there need be more clarity 
in what constitutes cross ownership... ok so that's in q4.A above
  Richard Tindal:if they had meant the TLD in question I think they would have 
said so
  George Sadowsky:If the most favorable interpretation of the baseline is not 
acceptable, then the details don't matter (a la Milton).  If the most favorable 
interpretation appears really good, then I guess there's no pressure to work 
toward a diferent outcome within the PDP
  Jothan Frakes:+1 george
  Richard Tindal:+2
  Jeff Neuman:Some of us may favor the baseline though with some minor 
clarifications -- I am not aying I do, but some may favor no cross ownership
  Michele Neylon:Jothan - the resolution is broader than that tbh
  Jeff Neuman:George - ICANN Staff needs guidance on the Board's directives.
  Jothan Frakes:trust me, I felt the board resolution, its still echoing
  Jeff Neuman:If the Board is unable to answer these questions, then staff will 
make it up
  Michele Neylon:Jeff - which probably isn't a good idea
  Richard Tindal:Jeff  -then you will simply propose what you want and argue 
its merits  Board language shouldnt be important to that
  George Sadowsky:Jeff   (;-)
  Jothan Frakes:lol jeff
  Jothan Frakes:was that intentional humor?
  Jothan Frakes:or accidental :)
  Jeff Neuman:ironic humor
  Jeff Neuman:It would be funny if it werent so sad
  Jeff Neuman::)
  Jeff Neuman:(sorry to staff on this chat), but certain staff members have a 
model they prefer and have been pushing it from day 1
  Michele Neylon:well it's an unfair burden on staff
  Michele Neylon:either the board issues edicts that are clear
  Michele Neylon:or they take the time to explain them
  Jothan Frakes:@Jeff, Michele sounds like it needs a little more granular 
breakdown
  Michele Neylon:and by clear I mean - clear enought that people of reasonable 
intelligence can understand what they are referring to
  Jothan Frakes:amen to that
  Jeff Neuman:Agreed.  We should all know what discussions took place at the 
Board workshop behind closed doors and why they chose the words they did.  I do 
not believe that resolutions are drafted on the fly.  Every word must mean 
something
  Michele Neylon:As a contracted party I cannot allow us, as a company, to end 
up in a situation where we could be in breach of a policy
  Alan:Agree Michele, don't think there is any benefit in different people 
having very diferent views of what the baseline is (ie whether it helps of 
hurts them to have this wg fail)
  Jeff Neuman:I draft resolutions for my company.  And every word is carefully 
drawn up
  Jothan Frakes:I also historically have seen that the board looks to the GNSO 
and the community to define these whitespaces.  I saw Mikey suggest that we as 
the WG perhaps make some definitions
  Phil Buckingham:Mikey - I agree with you - we give definitions to the Board 
on all the scenarios of ownership / control / contractual relationships
  Margie Milam:Sorry-  I think it is better that the whole group discuss this 
on the list so I will shut it down now
  Michele Neylon:ROFL
  Michele Neylon:Margie hath spoken :)
  Jothan Frakes:It might be helpful for us as a group to provide definitions 
for the board to callibrate and return vs. having them define them
  Alan:I have no problem if this wg were to make binding definitions on what 
the Board baseline means, but that could take us our whole time...
  Margie Milam:sorry folks!
  Jothan Frakes:Nice chatting everyone, will move this to list
  Mikey O'Connor:thanks all.  very helpful...
  Jothan Frakes:Margie let George finish his thought
  Jothan Frakes:pretty please
  Michele Neylon:Let her shut it down
  George Sadowsky:This has been a good discussion, and I'm sure that Mike has 
made as mamny mental notes as I have regarding the points of view and specific 
points made.  I llook forward to more interaction.  But I would encourage you 
to focus as much opr more on the kind of policy that youas members of the 
community would like to see in place in the short to medium run.
  George Sadowsky:that's it - i'm out of here ,,,,bye
  Richard Tindal:amen
  Jothan Frakes:thx everyone
  Jothan Frakes:and thanks margie for the extra seconds
  J.C. Vignes:indeed, thanks Margie!

------ End of Forwarded Message